
Book 



Copyright 1^?. 



COPVRIGHT DEPOSrr 



ZU Old Cestameitt 

am»ng 

Cbc Semitic Religions 



the Old testament 

mm 

CiK Semitic Religions 



By 

George Ricker Berry, Pb. D., D. D. 

Professor of Semitic Cansuagei, Colgate University 



Philadelphia 

Cbe etiffitb $ Rowlana Press 

Boston Chicago St £ouis 






Co 
tbt ntmory of 

e. L B. 



Copyright 1910 by 
A. J. ROWLAND, Secretary 

Published March, 1910 



©CLA259141 



preface 

Within recent years much has been written 
concerning the relation of the Hebrews to the 
surrounding nations, especially Babylonia and 
Assyria. While many phases of this relation 
have been discussed with great fulness, the most 
fundamental question has received a relatively 
inadequate consideration. This general question 
is, What features of the religious teachings, or 
theology, of the Old Testament are to be con- 
sidered common to the Hebrews and some other 
nation or nations, and what features are distinct- 
ive. Various elements in this question have been 
discussed, but it has been approached usually from 
the other side, with the consideration, e, g., of the 
features which Babylonia has contributed to the 
Old Testament. It is this general question which 
the present writer proposes for consideration. 

The nations to be embraced in this discussion 
evidently should include all the Semitic nations, 

5 



O PREFACE 

SO far as material is available ; for the association 
of the Hebrews was largely with Semitic nations. 
Further, it is a question not alone of national en- 
vironment but of national inheritance. Some ref- 
erence will also be made to the religion of Egypt. 
It is held by some that the Egyptians were a Sem- 
itic people. The present writer does not accept 
this view, but recognizes that the Egyptians were 
frequently subject to Semitic influences — religious 
as well as other — from an early period. The 
Egyptian sojourn of the Hebrews, however, and 
the intercourse between the two nations during 
the subsequent history, indicate that there was op- 
portunity for influence by one nation upon the 
other. Nevertheless, the general study which the 
writer has given to the matter has convinced him 
that any such influence was comparatively slight. 
Hence, it does not seem important to make any 
extended comparison with the Egyptian religion, 
but preferable to limit such comparison to a few 
points of special importance. No reference is 
made to possible influence upon the Old Testa- 
ment teaching by the Persian religion, the religion 
of Zarathushtra. If there was such influence, as 



PREFACE 7 

seems probable, it included only a few points and 
embraced simply details, so that it may here be 
disregarded. Practically, then, the comparison is 
between the Old Testament and the other Semitic 
religions. 

So far as a common-Semitic element appears 
from this study, or even an element common to the 
Hebrews and one or more of the other Sem- 
itic nations, it may, aside from the possibility of 
independent development, be explanied in two 
principal ways. One is by influence of one nation 
upon another, either by definite borrowing or in 
a less specific way; the other is by inheritance 
from common ancestors. Some reference will in- 
evitably be made to these possibilities in the 
course of the discussion, but the general matter 
will be considered more directly at its conclusion. 

It is recognized, of course, that any results 
reached in this study must be provisional and held 
with all due reserve. That is a necessary result 
from the fragmentary nature of the material. 
The new evidence that is constantly being made 
available, especially in the Babylonian field, will 
inevitably modify many features as they now ap- 



8 PREFACE 

pear. At the same time, the material now avail- 
able is sufficient so that some, at least provisional, 
results can be reached ; and it is not probable that 
all results now attained can be radically changed 
by increase of knowledge. An attempt to formu- 
late conclusions cannot wait indefinitely for ad- 
vancing knowledge, otherwise no conclusions 
could be reached in any field. 

Colgate University, January i, 1910. "• ^* ^' 



Content© 



PART I. GENERAL SURVEY 

Chaptbr Page 

I. Sketch of Semitic History 13 

11. Semitic Religious Literature 19 

III. Preliminary Problems 28 

PART 11. DIVINE BEINGS 

I. The Divine Nature 35 

11. Metaphysical Attributes 57 

III. Moral Attributes 70 

PART III. MAN 

I. Sin 87 

II. Salvation through Sacrifice 99 

HI. Salvation through Incantation.. 142 

IV. Salvation in Other Ways 146 

9 



lO CONTENTS 

PART IV. THE FUTURE LIFE 

Chapter Page 

I. The General Conception 165 

XL Rewards and Punishments 173 

PART V. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 
General Conclusions 185 

A Selected Bibliography 203 



PARTI 



GENERAL SURVEY 



SKETCH OF SEMITIC HISTORY 

CONCERNING the cradle of the Semites in 
any absolute sense, it is impossible to speak 
with assurance. That involves the general ques- 
tion of the origin and distribution of man upon 
earth, and goes back into prehistoric times. Con- 
cerning the common distributing point of the 
Semitic races, however, the home in which they 
lived in early times as one people, there are some 
definite indications. This common home is gen- 
erally considered to have been Arabia. It is 
hardly necessary to discuss the question here: it 
is sufficient to say that in the judgment of the 
writer the indications point clearly to this conclu- 
sion.^ This early home is to be sought in Central 
Arabia, the natural abiding-place of the nomads, 
rather than in the extreme north or south. From 
this early home came successive migratory move- 
ments toward the north, resulting chiefly from 

^ ^ Concerning this and other points in the general sketch here 
given, reference may be made to the article by the writer, " Semitic 
Nations," in the " Encyclopedia Americana," Vol, XIV. 

13 



14 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

over-population. The first of these was the Bab- 
ylonian migration. Even the approximate date of 
this cannot be determined with any approach to 
certainty. Winckler assigns an interval of about 
a thousand years between the principal migra- 
tions, and makes the date of this one about 3400 
B. C. But most authorities would consider it 
many centuries earlier than this, and Winckler 
allows the possibility of a considerable portion 
of the movement being earlier.^ The next wave 
of migration was the Canaanite. From this 
came the people of Canaan, Phoenicia, and vicin- 
ity, including the Hebrews as one of the later 
representatives of the movement. The date of 
this migration as given by Winckler, 2400-2100 
B. C, may be accepted as approximately correct. 
For the next movement, the Aramaic, Winckler 
gives the dates from the fifteenth to the thirteenth 
century. The culmination of this movement, 
however, should perhaps be regarded as later than 
these dates. The Aramaic tribes spread over 
Mesopotamia and Syria, and to some extent also 
over portions of Babylonia and Assyria. The last 
wave was the Arabian, the movement of the Arabs 
into Syria, in the seventh or eighth century B. C. 

1 See " The History of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 2if. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 5 

In all the cases cited the movement is not limited 
to the dates above given, but was in force both 
before and after, these dates indicating no more 
than the crest of the wave. Along with these 
came a southern migration, that of nomadic Arabs 
into Southern Arabia, where they adopted a set- 
tled habit of life. This apparently coincided ap- 
proximately with that of the Arameans, or may 
have been somewhat earlier. 

From the Babylonian migration resulted the 
Babylonian people and empire. The Babylonians 
as a nation had a distinct history until their con- 
quest by Cyrus, in 538 B. C, after which they 
never again regained their separate national exist- 
ence. To an unusual extent the Babylonians 
absorbed foreign elements, for the most part non- 
Semitic. In their early history they were prob- 
ably mingled with the Sumerians, their predeces- 
sors in the land. At later times conquest by the 
Elamites and Cassites caused further admixture. 
The Chaldeans who ruled in the new Babylonian 
empire were doubtless a later wave of Semitic 
migration, perhaps allied to the Arameans; and 
many Arameans settled at various times in Bab- 
ylonia and were to some extent absorbed. A 
daughter State of Babylonia was Assyria, founded 



1 6 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

by emigrants from Bab|^lohia before 2200 B. C, 
whose history continued to the fall of Nineveh in 
606. Assyria had less of foreign admixture than 
Babylonia, at least until the later years of the 
empire. 

The Canaanite nations, concerning which we 
have definite information, are Phoenicia, Edom, 
Moab, Ammon, Canaan, and the Hebrews. The 
earliest of these to reach the final location were 
the Phoenicians. The first definite references to 
these are in the Egyptian records at about the 
sixteenth century, but their coming was doubtless 
much earlier than that. The other nations may 
have come to the West at about the same time as 
the Hebrews, or perhaps somewhat earlier than 
that. The Old Testament accounts indicate at 
least that these nations were closely connected 
with the Hebrews. All these nations of Canaan 
and vicinity continued to occupy positions of 
considerable prominence down to the later pre- 
Christian centuries. 

The Arameans grouped themselves less defi- 
nitely into nations than the people in these earlier 
movements. They were for the most part tribes 
rather than nations, and preserved their nomadic 
habits for a considerable period of time, in most 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I7 

cases for centuries. They occupied Mesopota- 
mia and, later, Syria, together with portions of 
Babylonia and x\ssyria. When they gave up their 
nomadic form of life their government was 
loosely organized. The city-State was a specially 
prominent feature in their organization. These 
city-States were found in Mesopotamia and Syria, 
the strongest being in Syria. The political power 
of the Arameans was broken by the Assyrian con- 
quests, which culminated in the capture of Damas- 
cus by Tiglathpileser III, about 732 B. C. They 
continued, however, to be the prominent element 
in the population of Syria and upper Mesopotamia 
for centuries after this event. 

The Arabs retained their tribal organization 
and nomadic form of life, except the southern 
branch, during all their ancient history, and even 
largely to the present day. 

Further mention should also be made of the 
southern division of the Arabs. Southern Arabia 
being fertile and adapted to agriculture, a settled 
mode of life was naturally adopted. Four tribes 
or nations developed here — the Minseans, the Sa- 
baeans, the people of Hadramaut, and the people 
of Kataban. The Minseans and Sabseans estab- 
lished kingdoms of considerable strength. The 



l8 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

history of this region is known but very imper- 
fectly as yet; the present tendency, however, 
seems to be toward the view that the Minsean 
kingdom extended from about 1250-600 B. C, 
and the Sabaean from about 750-115 B. C/ The 
kingdom of Aksum, in Abyssinia, the inhabitants 
of which spoke the language commonly called 
Ethiopic, was founded by emigrants from South- 
ern Arabia, Sabseans, about A. D. 350. 

1 These are the dates given by Barton, " A Sketch of Semitic 
Origins," p. 122. 



II 

SEMITIC RELIGIOUS LITERATURE 

THE religious literature of the Babylonians 
and Assyrians is almost entirely of Bab- 
ylonian origin; when the particular inscription 
found was actually written in Assyria it is usually 
a copy of a Babylonian original. A large part of 
the religious documents are actually from the 
library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal ; but 
the originals were undoubtedly much older, al- 
though in most cases it is impossible to fix the date 
even approximately. Evidently they were of 
various dates, being produced at different times 
during the course of Babylonian history; but the 
specifically religious documents are thought to be 
relatively ancient. It is impossible to fix any or- 
der in the production of the different kinds of 
literature, unless by conjecture. Of some of the 
documents several copies have been found with 
considerable variations. The cities prominent as 
religious centers were naturally the place of com- 
position of most of these religious documents, but 

19 



20 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

some have been changed to adapt them to the 
worship of a different god from the one in whose 
honor they were composed. 

Of course reHgious elements are found in most 
of the Babylonian and Assyrian literature; and 
some information concerning religious matters is 
derived from inscriptions which are not specific- 
ally religious. In the narrow sense, however, 
it is probably sufficient to divide the religious 
literature into the following five classes: (i), 
the magical texts and rituals; (2), the hymns, 
prayers, and psalms; (3), omens; (4), cosmo- 
logical texts; and (5), epics and myths.^ The 
magical texts consist of formulae and directions 
for securing protection against the demons and 
evil spirits who injure men. There are several 
prominent series of these, one called prayers of 
the lifting of the hand, and others named Maqlii, 
Shurpu, Labartii, Utiikki limnuti, etc. Maqlu and 
Shiirpu both mean burning, as a symbolical act in 
the incantations; Lahartii is the name of a special 
demon; while Ufnkki limmiti means evil demons. 
These magical texts were for use in the temple by 
the priests, and thus in a broad sense belonged to 

1 See especially Jastrow, " Die Religion Babyloniens und Assy- 
rians," I. p. 269; and Weber, "Die Literatw- der Bahylonier und 

Assyrer," pp. 40-198. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 21 

the temple ritual. Other texts, however, known 
more specifically as ritual texts, are those which 
give directions to the priests for the performance 
of their specific ceremonies.^ They give direc- 
tions for three classes of priests, the baru, sooth- 
sayer ; ashipu, exorcist ; and zammaru, singer. 

The three varieties of literature classified above 
as hymns, prayers, and psalms are not sharply 
distinguished, being often found as parts of the 
same composition, and running into each other. 
In general, however, it is meant that a hymn is 
a poem in praise of a deity ; a prayer is a petition 
for help ; and a psalm is an expression of feeling, 
especially of the various needs of which the 
writer is conscious. Of the last, some are known 
as penitential psalms, confession of sin being 
prominent. Regularly these hymns, prayers, and 
psalms are a part of the temple services, although 
many of them may have been composed originally 
as the expression of personal feeling. 

The omen literature is very abundant. By 
omen texts are meant any inscriptions which have 
to do with the communication to men of the di- 
vine will by means of any signs or indications. 

^ The transliterations and translations of several of these texts 
are found in Zimmern, " Beitrdge zur Kenntnis der Babylonischen 
Religion," 



22 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

Of course these deal in general with the future, 
the ascertaining of what is to take place. A 
separate division might be recognized as oracles, 
which are, however, closely connected with omens. 
In the oracles specific questions were addressed 
to a god, and the god responded, either through 
the mouth of a priest, or more frequently a 
priestess, or through some sign, particularly 
through the condition of the animal sacrificed in 
connection with the ceremony, the special seat of 
this oracular response being the liver. The most 
of these texts thus far found are addressed to the 
sun-god Shamash, and belong to the time of 
Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. The omen texts 
derive omens from earthly and heavenly events. 
Among these earthly events are any occurrences 
that are at all unusual. Here belong the actions 
of animals, unusual births among animals and 
men, dreams, also soothsaying from sacrifices, and 
from cups, etc. For the most part such omens 
pertained to the king or to the general welfare. 
But there were also omens from individual ex- 
periences, which affected the individual alone. 
The heavenly events were the changes of the 
heavenly bodies, which were of course continually 
giving omens. This is the psuedo-science of as- 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 27, 

trology, which was fully developed and of great 
importance. 

The cosmology is not sharply distinguished 
from the myths ; since there is much that is myth- 
ical in what are called distinctly the cosmological 
tablets, and cosmological elements are found in 
some tablets that are more especially mythical. 
As usually classified, however, by the cosmolog- 
ical texts those tablets are meant that deal some- 
what directly with the creation. The principal 
one of these is what is usually called the " crea- 
tion epic," named also enuma elish from its first 
words. This consists of seven tablets, but is much 
mutilated. The most of the text at hand was 
found in the library of Ashurbanipal, but frag- 
ments have come from other sources. This is 
an account of the creation of all things — gods, the 
earth, animals, and men. Marduk is the promi- 
nent actor, and it is reasonably supposed that the 
present form was due to a recension in the interest 
of Marduk of Babylon when Babylon became the 
capital of Babylonia, about the time of Hammu- 
rabi, 2250 B. C. In that case Marduk has taken 
the place of some other god, or gods, as the prin- 
cipal actor. It is not the creation itself that is the 
chief purpose of the writing, but the account of 



24 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

the victory of Marduk over Tiamat, the goddess 
of chaos. Of special interest is a small fragment, 
K3445+Rm 396, which clearly is a part of the 
fifth tablet, but which has the god Ashur in place 
of Marduk, it thus being a later, specifically x\ssyr- 
ian, recension. A distinct account is found in a 
new-Babylonian tablet from Eridu, 82-5-22, 1048. 
This forms the introduction to an incantation text, 
and consists of about forty lines. It varies con- 
siderably from the other account, especially in 
the fact that the gods are already in existence. 
The creator is Marduk, here apparently the ear- 
lier Marduk of Eridu. Small fragments of other 
accounts have also been found. 

The epics and the myths, also, are not sharply 
distinguished. Usually, however, the term epic 
is applied especially to the epic of Gilgamesh. 
The most of this comes from the library of Ashur- 
banipal. It is the account of one Gilgamesh, 
whose name is written with the determinative for 
divine beings, but who in his acts is more human 
than divine. The narrative is for the most part 
mythical, with possibly a slight historical basis. 
There are twelve tablets in this epic. A part of 
it is the narrative of Utnapishtim giving an ac- 
count of the deluge, usually called the deluge 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 2^ 

tablet, and having close resemblances to the Old 
Testament account of the deluge. A fragment of 
another recension of this epic with marked varia- 
tions has also been found, written in the time of 
Hammurabi; and there are various fragments of 
a different deluge account, in which the hero is 
not Utnapishtim but Atrahasis. 

Among the myths more specifically so called are 
the Etana myth, which is an account of a mythical 
hero, Etana; the myth of Ira — Ira being the 
plague god; the myth of the storm god Zu; the 
myth of Adapa the Babylonian Adam; and sev- 
eral others. 

The Phoenician literature is preserved in their 
own inscriptions and in some quotations in Greek 
and Latin authors. The oldest inscriptions are 
three very brief ones found on fragments of bowls 
in Cyprus, and considered to belong to the eighth 
century B. C.^ Most of the inscriptions are from 
the fourth century and later. The religious ele- 
ment is prominent in these inscriptions. Of spe- 
cial importance, religiously, is the Marseilles 
tablet,^ of about the fourth century B. C, found 
at Marseilles but probably inscribed at Carthage. 
This deals with sacrifices. Similar are two shorter 

'CIS, I, 5. 2 CIS, I, 165. 



26 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

inscriptions, one of which is badly broken, of 
about the same date, found at Carthage/ 

There is no native literature known of the Am- 
monites, Edomites, and Canaanites. Some infor- 
mation concerning their religious ideas is derived 
from notices in the Old Testament and state- 
ments in the literature of other nations. This is 
supplemented in the case of the Canaanites by the 
results of recent excavations in Palestine. 

The native Moabite literature consists of one in- 
scription, the Moabite stone, written by Mesha, 
king of Moab, about 850 B. C. This gives some 
religious information, and is supplemented from 
other sources, particularly the Old Testament no- 
tices. 

It is unnecessary to give here an account of 
the Hebrew literature found in the Old Testa- 
ment. 

The earliest Aramaic literature consists of three 
inscriptions found at Zenjirli, in Northern Syria, 
dating from the eighth century B. C. These are 
historical and religious. There are many later 
Aramaic inscriptions, of the sixth to the fourth 
century and later, found in Arabia, Egypt, and 
elsewhere, in which ordinarily there is a religious 

iCIS, I, 166, 167. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 2/ 

element. The Christian Aramaic, i. e., Syriac, 
Hterature has of course no information for the 
present purpose. 

The Arabic Hterature of the time of Muham- 
mad and later is of course too late to be included 
here. Information concerning the religion before 
Muhammad comes largely from the Nabatsean in- 
scriptions, written in Aramaic by an Arabic peo- 
ple, with dates somewhat before and after the 
time of Christ, and from traditions given by later 
Arabic writers.^ 

Many inscriptions from Southern Arabia have 
been published in recent years, although a ma- 
jority of those discovered remain as yet unpub- 
lished. These are of very uncertain date, although 
it is thought that some of them are as early as 
I coo B. C. The inscriptions published are largely 
votive inscriptions. These afford much informa- 
tion concerning the gods, and some details con- 
cerning other features of the religion. 

1 See especially Wellhausen, " Reste Arabischen Heidentums," 2d 
ed. 



Ill 

PRELIMINARY PROBLEMS 

THERE is a question concerning the method 
of investigation and presentation which is 
this : How largely shall chronological matters en- 
ter into the discussion? In some specific cases 
quite largely, more often practically not at all. 
This is, in the first place, because chronolog- 
ical data are comparatively scanty. In the Old 
Testament the chronological development of the 
thought is somewhat in dispute, as is well known. 
But in the other Semitic nations the case is very 
much worse. In fact, in nearly all cases among 
these other nations it is impossible to trace the 
chronological development of the thought from 
any but the slightest indications. The difiiculty is 
well illustrated by the fact that most of the 
Babylonian religious literature in existence is only 
known from the copies in the library of Ashur- 
banipal; that the composition of much was ear- 
lier than this is unanimously agreed, but how early 

there is very little, indeed, to indicate. Again, 
28 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 29 

for such a study as this it is often unimportant 
to trace the chronological development of the 
thought among the separate nations. Such a 
matter might be of considerable importance in 
relation to the specific question of borrowing. But 
otherwise it is often sufficient for the purpose of 
comparison to consider the sum of the teaching of 
each religion, or the result of the development in 
each nation, the highest point attained. In gen- 
eral, this highest point was reached in all these 
nations at periods of time not very remote from 
each other. 

Another problem is the question of borrowing 
already mentioned. So far as it concerns the 
question of borrowing by or from the Old Testa- 
ment, this will be treated somewhat in a specific 
way later. How far, however, was there borrow- 
ing by the different Semitic nations, one from 
another, aside from the Hebrews? The evidence 
is not at hand to answer this question very fully. 
There are suggestions of such borrowing: e. g., 
when Shamash appears as a deity among the Ara- 
means and elsewhere it looks like a borrowing 
from the Babylonians. Yet most of the deities of 
each nation seem clearly to have had an inde- 
pendent development. Their names largely dif- 



30 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

fer, and their characteristics as well. Such bor- 
rowing as there has been, therefore, appears to be 
for the most part in minor matters. Of course it 
is quite within the possibilities that there is bor- 
rowing that cannot easily be traced, but it does 
not seem probable that there is a sufficient amount 
of this to affect materially any results that may be 
attained. 

A similar question is how much borrowing 
there may have been by Semites from non-Semitic 
peoples with whom they were closely associated. 
This, it would seem, might be expected to be a 
more difficult matter to trace than that which has 
just been mentioned. As a matter of fact, there 
seems to be no good reason for supposing that 
much borrowing of this kind has obtained, unless 
it be in one particular case. It is thought by many 
that the Babylonians borrowed quite largely, in 
religion and in other things, from the Sumerians. 
Sayce,^ e. g., thinks that many elements of the 
Babylonian religion, especially animism, were 
borrowed from the Sumerians. The whole Su- 
merian question is far from being settled. That 
the Sumerians were a reality is a conclusion that 
may be considered generally accepted. But that 

1 " The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia," passim. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 3 1 

by no means tells the whole story. The extreme 
claims for Sumerian influence upon the Babylo- 
nians are being considerably modified. It may 
be regarded as reasonably certain that the Sume- 
rians exerted no such great influence as is claimed 
by Sayce. In fact, the present tendency is to re- 
gard their actual influence as slight. Such mat- 
ters as animism are found to some extent in the 
other Semitic religions. So far as the religion is 
concerned the following statements of Jastrows 
may be considered fairly to represent the views of 
many : "It is generally admitted that all the 
literature of Babylonia, including the oldest, and 
even that written in the * ideographic ' style, 
whether we term it ' Sumero-Akkadian ' or ' hier- 
atic/ is the work of the Semitic settlers of Meso- 
potamia." " The culture, including the religion 
of Babylonia, is likewise a Semitic production, 
and since Assyria received its culture from Bab- 
ylonia, the same remark holds good for entire 
Mesopotamia." " The important consideration 
for our purpose is, that the religious conceptions 
and practices as they are reflected in the literary 
sources now at our command are distinctly Bab- 
ylonian. With this we may rest content, and, leav- 
ing theories aside, there will be no necessity in 



32 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

an exposition of the religion of the Babylonians 
and Assyrians to differentiate or to attempt to 
differentiate between Semitic and so-called non- 
Semitic elements. Local conditions and the long 
period covered by the development and history of 
the religion in question, are the factors that suf- 
fice to account for the mixed and in many re- 
spects complicated phenomena which this re- 
ligion presents." ^ 

^ " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 23f. 



PART II 
DIVINE BEINGS 



THE DIVINE NATURE 

IN theological discussions three things es- 
pecially are included in treating of the divine 
nature — ^personality, unity, and spirituality. Be- 
fore making a comparison on these points, a brief 
statement concerning the usual Semitic way of 
regarding divine beings may be desirable. It is 
perhaps extreme to regard animism as an early 
phase in all religions, yet it has been well estab- 
lished that it is a very common feature of primitive 
religions. It seems reasonably clear that this was 
the earliest stage that can be traced in the Semitic 
religions. By animism is meant that religious be- 
lief which ascribes life to all the objects and forces 
of nature, including not only those of earth 
and air, but also the heavenly bodies. Each ob- 
ject and force was thus the seat of a spirit ; and, 
in the primitive conception, all these spirits were 
equal in power. Of this belief there are traces in 
several of the Semitic religions, although they are 
most marked among the Babylonians. But modi- 

35 



36 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

fications necessarily arose. A difference in the 
power of these spirits over human affairs was 
soon beheved in. " The result of this would be 
to give a preponderance to the worship of the 
sun and moon and the water, and of such natural 
phenomena as rain, wind, and storms, with their 
accompaniment of thunder and lightning, as 
against the countless sprites believed to be lurk- 
ing everywhere." ^ With the sun and moon were 
also associated some of the planets, so that the 
religion took on an astral character. This was 
characteristic of all the Semitic religions, ex- 
cept that of the Old Testament. A different de- 
velopment was the feature of local gods. This 
resulted especially from the growth of civiliza- 
tion and the rise of cities. Each city had its own 
god, developed it may be from a spirit of that re- 
gion, or one of the greater gods associated in 
some way with that locality. Local gods were 
thus in a sense a development of the more general 
nature worship, although the connection with 
nature might become somewhat obscured as a 
result of the local feature of the worship. Among 
the western Semites particular prominence was 
given to the course of the year, the change of sea- 

1 Jastrow, " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 48. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 37 

sons, etc., in their supposed teaching concerning 
the gods. There are doubtless, also, traces of to- 
temism and ancestor worship among the Semites. 
Totemism should probably be considered a de- 
velopment of animism, the life of animals being 
regarded as similar to that of gods and men. An- 
cestor worship was not directly connected with 
animism, its immediate source being probably the 
mystery of death. How far the representation of 
the gods as animals — which is common, especially 
among the Babylonians — is due to totemism may 
be questioned. To some extent this feature is 
doubtless to be regarded as symbolical rather than 
pictorial, the animal forms being employed in this 
connection as symbols of power. An anthropo- 
morphic tendency was doubtless present from the 
first, the very idea of animism coming from at- 
tributing features of human life to inanimate ob- 
jects. In the close connection of the gods with 
nature, however, this idea might not be promi- 
nent. But some anthropomorphic tendency is 
inevitable in thinking of powers not definitely 
known. Hence, as a matter of fact, the anthropo- 
morphic side was prominent in the Semitic re- 
ligions, and the gods were represented in human 
form, particularly by the Babylonians and Assyr- 



38 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

ians.^ This anthropomorphism may have been 
aided by ancestor worship, but is doubtless not 
wholly due to that influence. 

Personality. Personality is prominent in all 
the Semitic religions. The thought of personality 
might not unnaturally be obscured in two ways. 
Nature gods might easily retain so much connec- 
tion with nature that personality was obscured; 
they were little more than forces of nature. In 
all the religions under consideration, except that 
of the Old Testament, the gods, as we have seen, 
were nature gods in their origin, and did not en- 
tirely lose their character as such. Yet, in all, 
there has been so much development of the ideas 
that the personality of the principal gods is not 
sensibly obscured. The connection with nature 
is subordinate. The Babylonian god Shamash, 
e. g., was the sun-god, and this fact was apparently 
always kept conspicuously in mind by ordinarily 
using the determinative for divine beings when 
the sun itself is designated, by the same word. 
Yet the distinctive character of Shamash was as 
the god of justice, in which conception the idea of 



1 Nielsen, "Die altarahische Mondreligion," p. 118, claims that 
in the South Arabic religion no god was worshiped as animal or 
man. There are representations of gods in these forms, however, 
which he considers to be only symbolical. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 39 

personality was prominent. The minor gods, 
however, as well as the spirits, have no strongly 
marked individuality, so that in these the idea of 
personality is not conspicuous. The other way in 
which personality might be obscured is by a pan- 
theistic tendency. There are traces of this among 
the Semites, but only as a result of philosophical 
speculation concerning divine unity, as will be 
noted. The popular religion does not tend in this 
direction. Personality, then, is nearly as promi- 
nent in the other Semitic religions as in the Old 
Testament. The Egyptian religion tended some- 
what more strongly, in a speculative way, toward 
pantheism, but here also personality was ordi- 
narily a strongly marked feature. 

In some respects, in fact, personality was over- 
emphasized in the Semitic religions. This is, of 
course, natural in polytheism. As the connection 
with nature diminished, the gods were thought 
of as unusual men in their characteristics. Divine 
transcendence is not marked in polytheism, al- 
though there were clearer traces of it in the 
Semitic religions than in most others. Not only 
an anthropomorphic method of representation, 
but anthropomorphic conceptions were a promi- 
nent characteristic of all the other Semitic re- 



40 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

ligions, except that of the Old Testament. This 
appears prominently in the Babylonian mythology, 
where human traits and emotions are a conspicu- 
ous feature of the relations of the gods with each 
other. In the Old Testament there is much an- 
thropomorphic representation, but the later teach- 
ing, at any rate, cannot be considered to result 
from anthropomorphic conceptions. Some Old 
Testament phrases which seem to present marked 
anthropomorphic conceptions are evidently sur- 
vivals in language from an earlier time, e. g., the 
not uncommon description of sacrifices as the 
" bread of God." 

Unity. The noticeable feature here is the con- 
trast between the monotheism of the Old Testa- 
ment teaching and the polytheism of all the other 
Semitic nations and Egypt. The oft-discussed 
question whether the earlier Old Testament teach- 
ing should be called monotheism or monolatry is 
unimportant here, for no one doubts that most of 
the Old Testament doctrine, including all the later 
part, can be called by no other name than mono- 
theism. Neither is the question of the origin 
either of the name or worship of Yahweh of 
any particular importance in this connection; for 
that does not affect the prevailing teaching of the 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 4 1 

Old Testament. In all the other religions con- 
sidered polytheism is conspicuous. The origin of 
the Semitic religions has already been indicated. 
In harmony with that is the fact that all these 
religions, except that of the Old Testament, are 
polytheistic, and in some the gods are very nu- 
merous. The early Babylonian pantheon, before 
Hammurabi, contained sixty-five gods and god- 
desses known by name, according to the list given 
by Jastrow,^ aside from many spirits. The Arabs 
had also many gods,^ and also subordinate spirits 
known as jinns. The gods of the southern Arabs 
so far found are comparatively few in number. 
The Phoenician deities were about fifty in all.^ 
Several different gods are mentioned in the early 
Aramaic inscriptions, as well as in the Old Testa- 
ment accounts of the Arameans. The scantiness 
of information concerning the other Semitic na- 
tions — Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Canaan — does 
not allow very definite statements, but it is clear 
that they were polytheists. 

It may be asked, however, whether there are 
not approximations to monotheism in these other 
religions. In several ways, somewhat related, they 

^"Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens," I, p. 5 if. 

2 See Wellhausen, " Reste arahischen Heidentums," 2d ed., passim. 

* Thatcher, in "Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible," III, p. 861. 



42 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

did approach monotheism: these can be traced 
chiefly in the Babylonian and Assyrian religions. 
One way is through gradations among the gods. 
In all systems of polytheism some gods are more 
powerful or more prominent than others. This 
comes about chiefly through the local relations 
of the gods. In early times one god was es- 
pecially the god of a city or district. As nations 
were formed by the union of cities and districts 
through conquest or otherwise, all the gods were 
included in the pantheon of the whole region. 
But each god still retained his special seat; and 
in general the power of the god corresponded to 
the political power of the city where his worship 
was localized. The god of the capital city was 
head of the pantheon. Thus Marduk, the god of 
Babylon, was the head of the later Babylonian 
pantheon; Ashur, the god of the city Ashur, was 
the chief god of Assyria. The supreme god was 
often spoken of with an emphasis on his power 
that separates him from the remaining gods. 
There are many hymns in which this is done with 
Marduk. Thus it is even said of him, " Thou 
bearest the might of Anu, the might of Bel, the 
might of Ea, dominion and majesty." ^ This does 

ijastrow, "Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens," I, p. 513. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 43 

not mean, however, that Marduk is identified with 
these gods, but that in his position as head of the 
pantheon he has taken their attributes. There 
is to be noticed here a monarchical tendency, cor- 
responding to the concentration of power in the 
hands of the human monarch. Ashur was dis- 
tinctively an Assyrian god, and the only one of 
the Assyrian pantheon who was such. If his wor- 
ship originated in Babylonia it was of slight im- 
portance there. It thus came about that his power 
in Assyria was very great. In the worship of 
Ashur, however, there is no difference in kind 
from the other gods, but only in degree. The 
Assyrian kings mention prominently many other 
gods along with Ashur, and are named for them. 
The quotation given in reference to Marduk 
suggests a more general matter, viz., a tend- 
ency to syncretism, or identification of different 
gods with each other. This is seen in the Babylo- 
nian religion, e. g., in the identification of Mar- 
duk with Bel, the god being known as Bel-Mar- 
duk, and probably in the identification of Sin and 
Nannar, Shamash and Babbar, etc. Partial trans- 
ference of the same kind is seen in the passing of 
attributes from one deity to another. Especially, 
as in the case above, it is Marduk the supreme god 



44 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

who absorbs the characteristics of others. In one 
text he seems to absorb their personahties, so that 
it is said, " Ninib is Marduk of strength, Nergal is 
Marduk of battle, Zamama is Marduk of slaugh- 
ter, Bel is Marduk of rule and order, Nabu is 
Marduk of business, Sin is Marduk as illuminator 
of night, Shamash is Marduk as lord of all which 
is just, Adad is Marduk of rain, Sukh is Marduk 

of the army, Marduk , Shukamuna 

is Marduk of clay vessel." ^ Similar texts give to 
Ea, Bel, Ninib, Nergal, and Adad the same role 
as Marduk has in this text. This, however, is not 
monotheism: it rather means that these great 
gods are representatives of Marduk the supreme 
deity, or of other gods. 

Another way in which an approach to mono- 
theism arose was the following: A worshiper 
whose attention was concentrated upon one god 
used extravagant language in reference to him, 
language which suggests a monotheistic idea. 
Thus of Sin, the Babylonian moon-god, it is said, 
" In heaven who is exalted ? Thou alone art 
exalted. On earth who is exalted ? Thou alone art 
exalted." ^ But there are no indications that 



1 Published by Pinches, " Journal of the Transactions of the Vic- 
ria Institute," XXXIII (1896), p. 8f. 

2 Jastrow, " The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 304. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 45 

such worshipers devoted themselves simply to one 
god; these expressions are merely rhetorical and 
devotional. In fact, in this very hymn other gods 
are recognized, in the statement, " O Lord, chief 
of the gods, who on earth and in heaven alone is 
exalted." Of Nabu, again, it is said, in an in- 
scription on a statue of his by an officer of Adad- 
nirari III, " O posterity, trust in Nabu, trust not 
in another god." ^ This is thought to show a 
political tendency, rather than a religious. It is 
noticeable also that in this inscription there is 
recognition of Ea and Bel. 

The Egyptian religion has somewhat different 
tendencies toward monotheism. Reference has 
already been made to a tendency toward panthe- 
ism, which is such more truly than toward mono- 
theism. Maspero ^ quite certainly overstates the 
case when he says, " The scribes, the priests, the 
officials, all the educated world, in fact, of Egyp- 
tian society, never professed that gross pagan- 
ism which caused Egypt to be called with justice 
* the mother of superstitions.' The various names 
and innumerable forms attributed by the multitude 



^K B, I, p. 192; Baentsch, " Altorienialischer und israelitischer 
Monotheismus," p. 10. 

2 Quoted by Sayce, " The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Bab- 
ylonia," p. 246. 



46 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

to as many distinct and independent divinities 
were for them merely names and forms of one 
and the same being." This philosophical specula- 
tion was probably of much less importance than 
has often been supposed. A form of monotheism 
was doubtless introduced into Egypt by the " here- 
tic king " Amenhotep IV, in the worship of Aten, 
the solar disk. There is much that is uncertain 
about this movement. It does not seem to be con- 
nected with the pantheistic tendency already 
noted. It is questionable to what an extent the 
movement was due to foreign influence, and 
whether it should not be considered a political 
movement rather than a religious one. In any 
case, it lasted but a brief time. Some other mani- 
festations of the sun-god seem to have been 
worshiped along with Aten, so that perhaps it 
should not be called in the full sense monotheism. 
This can hardly be regarded as definitely establish- 
ing any pronounced tendency in the real Egyp- 
tian religion toward monotheism. 

It seems evident from what has been said that 
the utmost tendency toward monotheism in the 
Semitic religions meant only that one god was 
often regarded more highly than another, some- 
times to an extreme extent. But it was rarely, if 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 47 

ever, that any worshiped one god exclusively, and 
there was seldom an idea that the worship of 
one god was hostile to that of another, except in 
the case of a god of a hostile land. The Egyptian 
tendency was no stronger than the Semitic, ex- 
cept as there was a greater inclination toward 
pantheism. 

A noticeable tendency has recently appeared 
to speak of an ancient Oriental monotheism as 
existing generally among the Semitic nations and 
in Egypt, being most conspicuously exemplified 
among the Babylonians and Assyrians, Arabs and 
Egyptians.^ This is generally regarded as being 
in its nature pantheistic — a teaching that all the 
gods were but manifestations of one being. The 
evidence for this view has for the most part 
been indicated in what has already been said. A 
prominent consideration, however, is the idea that 
this doctrine was of an esoteric nature, being con- 
fined to the priests. The general existence of such 
esoteric doctrine, however, may well be ques- 
tioned. The view depends largely upon the in- 
terpretation of some passages, chiefly in the Bab- 

* On this see especially Jeremias, " Monotheisttsche Stromungen 
innerhalh der bahylonischen Religion"; Baentsch, " Altorientalischer 
und israelitischer Monotheismiis " ; Nielsen, "Die altarabische Mond- 
religion und die mosaische Ueberlieferung " ; and Jeremias, " Das 
alte Testament im Lichie des Alien Orients/* 2d ed. 



48 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

ylonian inscriptions, such as have already been 
cited. These seem to the writer to suggest a 
monarchical or syncretistic rather than a panthe- 
istic view of the deities. 

Nielsen ^ presents, however, a view that mono- 
theism was the early common-Semitic belief, and 
polytheism a later development. The idea of La- 
grange ^ seems to be quite similar. Nielsen main- 
tains that a conception of god as one and an eth- 
ical personality is found in the early religion of 
South Arabia, and was a primitive common-Sem- 
itic idea. " Der Gotteshegriif ist hier hochst ein- 
fach, ist in keiner Weise versinnlicht und mit ir- 
gend etwas Aeusseren in Verhindung gehracht; 
nichts deutet darauf hin, dass der Wirkungskreis 
dieses Gottes auf ein hestimmtes Gestirn, Ort oder 
Volk beschrdnkt istj dass wir hier einen Astral- 
Lokal- Oder Nationalgott vor uns hahen; es ist 
die Rede von ' Gott/ niemals von ' Gbtternf An- 
statt diisserer Bestimmungen des gottlichen We- 
sens Unden sich eine Fiille von Prddikaten, die dem 
Gotteshegriif e ethische, personliche Eigenschaften 
beilegen. Gott ist die gerechte Liebe, gut, gnddig, 
segnend u. s. w., ein personlicher Gott, denn er 

1 " Die altarahische Mondreligion und die mosaische Ueberliefer- 
ung," especially p. lof. 

^£tudes sur les Religions Semitiques," pp. 70-83. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 49 

weisSj erinnertj erhort u. s. w., ein gerechter Gott, 
der seine Gebote den Menschen erteilt, aber vor 
alien Dingen ein liehender Gott, der mit den 
Menschen in Bund tritt und ihnen den Frieden 
verliehtJ' ^ 

This view, however, does not seem to be justi- 
fied by the evidence. There are ethical traits 
here, to be sure, but the facts presented do not 
warrant the conclusion that here is a god who 
approaches ethical completeness. The evidence 
of the author comes primarily from South Ara- 
bian proper names, which have such forms as wad- 
dada-ilu, god loves; tsadaq-ilu, god is righteous; 
ilu-magir, god is kind, etc. These proper names 
are found in inscriptions, but are believed by 
Nielsen to show an earlier stage of the religion 
than the inscriptions themselves. These names 
are supplemented by similar names from Bab- 
ylonian inscriptions, from the period of Hammu- 
rabi and earlier. God here, it is said by Nielsen, 
is one, as indicated by the use simply of the word 
ilu, and fully ethical, as indicated by these char- 
acteristics of his which are stated. But the un- 
confirmed evidence of the proper names is an un- 

^ " Die altarabische Mondreligion und die mosaische Ueherliefer- 
ung," p. I of. 



so THE OLD TESTAMENT 

certain reliance for so general a conclusion. In 
fact, the inscriptions of South Arabia testify to at 
least three or four astral deities, of a nature simi- 
lar to the corresponding gods in the Babylonian 
pantheon. It seems highly probable, therefore, 
that there was always a plurality of gods in the 
conception of the Southern Arabs, and that they 
were nature gods, and only imperfectly ethical. 

The argument for monotheism from the use of 
ilu is very precarious. Such a usage might readily 
be found under polytheism, for various reasons. 
One reason might be that the god in mind was 
the special god of the locality, not called by name 
because well known ; another, that the names were 
familiar ones, and used in an abbreviated or gen- 
eralized form, as was often the case. 

Monotheism is by no means so exclusively the 
feature which gives superiority to a religion as is 
sometimes assumed. Monotheism alone does not 
assure a high standard, as is evidenced by Mu- 
hammadanism. Yet it is a necessary condition of 
high development. The ethical character of re- 
ligion is inevitably imperfect under polytheism: 
the gods in a polytheistic system are for the most 
part non-ethical or unethical in their character, 
as will be seen more fully later. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 5 1 

Spirituality. Spirituality is a marked char- 
acteristic of the Old Testament teaching: it is 
largely absent from the religions of the other 
Semitic nations and Egypt. Some have ques- 
tioned, however, how fully the spirituality of 
Yahweh is taught in the Old Testament. It is 
undoubtedly true that this conception was one 
which the Hebrews had great difficulty in grasp- 
ing. The popular religion of every period before 
the exile had only an imperfect idea of it. Yet 
the teaching of the Old Testament made it promi- 
nent from the first. The second commandment, 
which must in any case be relatively early, if it 
does not directly teach the spirituality of God, 
strongly implies it. This feature is always em- 
phasized as well in the teachings of the prophets. 

Several things may seem to teach limitations 
of the spirituality of God in the Old Testament. 
One is the emphasis upon personality, with the 
resulting anthropomorphisms. It has perhaps 
already been sufficiently indicated under person- 
ality that this does not denote a real limitation. 
Another thing is the connection of Yahweh 
with nature. It is held by many that the con- 
ception of Yahweh in the early part of the Old 
Testament includes many traits of a nature god. 



52 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

But, in any case, it is not claimed that this appears 
in the teaching of the later part of the Old Testa- 
ment. Further, these descriptions of natural phe- 
nomena in connection with the theophanies of 
Yahweh are of such variety that they clearly do 
not indicate that he is thought of as a nature god. 
Another feature is the externality of the worship. 
This has two phases which need consideration. 
One is that the worship is localized, at first to 
some extent in connection with the ark, and after- 
ward at the temple. This no doubt made it easy 
to think of the center of worship as the abode of 
Yahweh. But such was not the real meaning of 
this feature. Rather, the centralization of wor- 
ship indicates, prominently at least, an emphasis 
upon the religious unity of the nation. It is 
clearly taught that the temple is not the real abode 
of Yahweh. That abode is often spoken of as 
heaven, but even that is considered as unable to 
contain him, as it is expressed in the prayer of 
Solomon (i Kings 8 : 27), *' But will God in 
very deed dwell on the earth ? behold, heaven and 
the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how 
much less this house that I have builded ! " The 
other phase is the prominence of ritual, external 
rites, in the worship. These rites may be of such 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 53 

a nature as to imply a belief in God as material, 
or they may not. Certain features in connection 
with sacrifices might seem to look rather definitely 
in this direction. The origin of Semitic sacrifices, 
as will be seen later, is doubtless to be sought in 
a physical conception of God. Some phrases used 
also imply that thought, as the description of the 
sacrifices as n^nb^ onS, bread of God, But this 
early thought has doubtless disappeared, at least 
largely, in the Old Testament teaching concerning 
sacrifices, although not in the popular conception. 
The culmination of the teaching concerning God, 
further, as will be indicated later, is not found 
in the sacrifices, but in the prophetical writings. 

There is no real conception of spirituality in the 
other Semitic religions. In origin the gods are 
material, being connected with the objects of 
nature. And this connection is never entirely lost 
from view. In their later development, however, 
as has already been said, emphasis was placed 
upon the idea of personality. Then the gods were 
regarded as men of superior power; and they 
were no more regarded as pure spirit than man is. 
Again, the representations of the gods show the 
same state of things. In all these other Semitic 
religions the gods were regularly represented by 



54 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

images. Of course it is always a possibility that in 
some minds an image may have been regarded in 
a purely symbolical way, and the god not identi- 
fied with the image. The common use of images, 
however, would show that this was not the pre- 
vailing view. The treatment of the images shows, 
moreover, that in general the god was thoroughly 
identified with the image. By the Assyrians 
and Babylonians, e. g., the images of conquered 
cities or countries, whether related peoples or not, 
were carried off to the capital of the conquer- 
or; and later they were sometimes rescued and 
returned to their original locations. The forbid- 
ding of images in the second commandment in 
the Old Testament brings the Old Testament into 
sharp contrast at this point with the Semitic cus- 
tom.s and thought universal elsewhere. 

In Egypt practically the same condition is 
found as in the general Semitic thought. Here 
also the gods were thought of in general as men, 
and were represented by images and also by 
animals. 

The later conceptions in all these nations, so 
far as known, tended somewhat toward the idea 
of spirituality, but failed to attain to it. The gross- 
ness of the early materialistic conceptions was 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 55 

somewhat refined, but not entirely lost. The 
broadening of political divisions effected a similar 
condition in the sphere of religion; the god who 
was early limited to a small territory became iden- 
tified with a much larger region. The conquering 
gods, such as Ashur, were considered to conquer 
the territory of other gods. Yet the power of the 
gods never went far beyond the country subject 
to them, the conception of any god as having do- 
minion over the world being ordinarily unattain- 
able under polytheism. And even that conception 
would not necessarily be a conception of a spirit- 
ual being, although it would approach to it. 

The pantheistic speculation of the Egyptians 
looks in the direction of spirituality. But this, 
as has already been remarked, probably had but 
little real effect upon the religion as a whole; 
neither was it clearly a spiritual conception. 

The monarchical form of polytheism, already 
referred to, marks a culmination in the exaltation 
of the power of a single god, and a consequent 
diminution of the local limitations. Yet some idea 
of these limitations remained. 

A certain transcendental element in the Bab- 
ylonian religion comes from the fact that, in the 
later thought, the proper home of the gods was 



56 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

in heaven, their earthly abodes being simply the 
counterpart of their heavenly residences. This 
marks a contrast with humanity, and affords a 
starting-point for the idea of spirituality, which, 
however, remains no more than a slight tendency. 



II 

METAPHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES 

AS usually stated in modern phraseology the 
natural or metaphysical attributes of God 
are eternity, omnipotence, omnipresence, and om- 
niscience. A statement as definitely theological 
as this goes beyond the treatment of the Old Tes- 
tament. Yet substantially the modern idea is 
found there. The teaching is that Yahweh is in- 
definitely superior to ordinary human limitation in 
regard to time, power, space, and knowledge. In 
particular this is strongly affirmed in the prophets. 
Modern language speaks of God as infinite. The 
Old Testament writers meant very nearly the 
same when they spoke, e. g,, of the majesty of 
God. The difference is that while the term infinite 
is theoretical, without limitations, the Old Testa- 
ment thought is usually practical, indefinitely 
transcending human limitations. Yet the differ- 
ence is slight, and at times the Old Testament 
statements contain strong theoretical affirmations. 
The religions of the other Semitic nations show 

57 



58 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

contrast with the Old Testament far more than 
resemblance at this point; the gods only imper- 
fectly transcend human limitations, as will be 
seen from a more detailed consideration. 

Eternity. Some of the strongest affirmations 
on this point in the Old Testament are found in 
the following passages, Exod. 15 : i8; Ps. lo : 
16; 103 : 17; Isa. 51 : 6; 41 : 4; 43 : 10; 44 : 
6; 48 : 12. In accordance with the practical na- 
ture of the Old Testament these passages speak 
more especially of limitless duration in the future, 
yet they speak of the past as well. In some cases 
the words used express only indefinite duration, in 
others it is clearly limitless. The many passages 
in which God is spoken of as creator of all things 
look in the same direction, i. e., they indicate in- 
definite past duration, although not necessarily 
eternal. 

Polytheism brings time limitation in two ways : 
it limits the gods in their past history by reason 
of the fact that one is descended from another; 
and it limits them to a certain extent in the same 
way by their connection with created material 
objects, especially the sun, moon, and stars. The 
first tendency would of course leave it possible 
that the earliest god should be thought of as ex- 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 59 

isting from limitless time in the past. As a mat- 
ter of fact, however, there is no real evidence of 
such a conception. Several Babylonian gods are 
spoken of in different accounts as creators of 
everything; but this is a general, poetic phrase, 
conveying no very specific meaning. In the real 
Babylonian system the earliest triad as ordinarily 
reckoned, all standing on an equality in point of 
origin, was Anu, Bel, and Ea. Anu was god of 
heaven, Bel of earth, and Ea of water. But back 
of these were two — a male and female — ^An-shar 
and Ki-shar, shadowy beings, seldom referred to, 
mere general personifications of heaven and earth. 
Hence, it is evident that among the Babylonians 
there is no definite idea of past eternal existence of 
any god. Among the other Semitic nations there 
is hardly material enough to form the basis of a 
definite statement, but apparently the facts are 
somewhat similar. It is evident that in all the 
connection of the deities with natural objects is 
prominent. The Egyptian representation of the 
age of the gods is very confused and inconsistent. 
But as the prominent worship is solar, that consti- 
tutes a limitation. 

In general it is evident that so far as concerns 
the future the gods were thought of as living in- 



6o THE OLD TESTAMENT 

definitely. It is not a point which is directly 
touched upon, however, so much as it is assumed. 
But the material connection here also interposes 
a limit to theoretical eternity, although not to 
indefinite duration, practically considered. The 
gods were like men in many ways, and they 
fought with each other, but ordinarily did not 
destroy each other: they were only occasionally 
represented as subject to death. The connection 
with material objects doubtless helped to convey 
the idea of unlikeness to men at this point. 

Omnipotence. The Old Testament expresses 
very strongly the omnipotence of God. Usually, 
of course, it is considered in certain practical rela- 
tions. Yet there are many assertions that the 
power of God is indefinitely above any human 
power, and in marked contrast with the power- 
lessness of the gods of the nations. The power 
of God is contemplated usually from two asso- 
ciated points of view: as exhibited in creation, 
and as shown in his continual control over na- 
ture, individuals, and nations. There is a wide 
sweep of his power, no nation of the earth, no 
part of the universe even, being outside of its 
scope. These teachings are found especially in 
such passages as Isa. 40; 43 : 13; 45 : 9; Amos 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 6 1 

9:7; Jer. 18. How much limitation of this con- 
ception may be found in the early part of the Old 
Testament is unimportant, inasmuch as the teach- 
ing of these passages represents at any rate the 
height which is reached and maintained by the 
Old Testament. 

In all the other Semitic religions it is evident 
that much emphasis was placed upon the power of 
the gods: they were regarded as far superior to 
men. It can hardly be doubted that the early com- 
mon-Semitic word for god was the one found in 
the Hebrew, b«, the same word being in use in 
nearly or quite all the other Semitic languages/ 
The derivation, and hence the original signifi- 
cance, of this word are much disputed. It seems 
probable to the writer, however, that this original 
significance was to he strong. If so, the promi- 
nent early idea concerning the gods was that of 
strength. 

It is also evident, however, that the power of 
the gods falls far short of omnipotence. There 
are limitations to divine power, limitations which 
vary greatly in their force at different points, yet 
which are never passed. Polytheism itself consti- 

^ See especially Lagrange, " ttudes sur les Religions Semitiques/' 
pp. 70-83. 



62 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

tutes an important limitation. The power of one 
god is greatly limited by that of others, in a poly- 
theistic system. This appears, e, g., in the Baby- 
lonian mythology, where the gods quarrel among 
themselves and one thwarts the plans of others. 
Of course the supreme god is superior chiefly in 
power. But that power does not reach omnipo- 
tence. 

Closely connected with this is another idea, 
which constitutes a more definite limitation. This 
was the idea of local gods. Originally the power 
of a god was conceived as confined to the city 
where he dwelt and the region immediately about. 
This continued to be the conception to a certain 
extent in all these religions. Yet in process of 
time, especially as a result of the unification of 
national life, this conception lost somewhat its 
definite character, although it did not entirely 
disappear. There remained in full force, at any 
rate, the national limitation. The power of a god 
was ordinarily limited to the territory of his own 
nation. Babylonia and Assyria religiously were 
in most respects one nation. Hence, the power of 
a Babylonian god might extend over Babylonia 
and Assyria, but would not necessarily do so ; and 
would ordinarily be limited to that region. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 63 

It is doubtless a result of the same general idea 
that the gods in general in the Babylonian re- 
ligion have no relation with the underworld, 
Aralu. This is conceived of as a place, but one 
with which the ordinary gods have nothing to do. 
It has a god and goddess of its own, commonly 
known as Nergal and Allatu. The teachings on 
this matter will be further discussed at a later 
point. 

Another limitation in power is also conspicuous 
— limitation in the sphere of activity of a particu- 
lar god. As the idea of local gods became less 
distinct, this other limitation increased in force. 
In the early conception a god had control of only 
a small region, yet within that region the sphere 
of his activity was not expressly limited. Later, 
inasmuch as many gods had power over the same 
region, or even over a whole nation, it was inevi- 
table that conflict of authority should be avoided 
to a certain extent by limiting the sphere of the 
activity of each one, although of course this was 
done but imperfectly. Shamash, e. g., in the 
Babylonian system, was the god of justice, with 
which none of the other gods had much to do; 
Nabu was the god of literature, etc. So fully was 
this felt that when literary activity became promi- 



64 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

nent in Assyria, in the reign of Shalmaneser II 
and his successors, the worship of Nabu received 
a new impetus, so that Adadnirari III built him a 
temple in Kalkhi ; and this in spite of the fact that 
in general the power of Ashur, the great god of 
Assyria, had less limitation, perhaps, than that of 
any other Semitic god. 

The Babylonian incantation literature shows 
limitations in the power of the gods. An especially 
powerful god is appealed to, with the belief that 
his power will prevail over that of another god, 
who is indifferent or hostile. This literature also 
indicates that the god always obeyed, necessarily, 
the incantation if it was exactly right, i. e., there 
were formulae which surely had power over the 
god. This literature is not the highest expres- 
sion of the Babylonian religion ; still it constitutes 
an important part of it. 

In some ways individual limitations, before 
mentioned, were diminished in particular cases, 
especially by war. Church and State were in- 
separably connected in these religions : the divine 
power varied with the power of the king. Con- 
quest added to the power of the special god of the 
victorious king ; the conquered land became a part 
of his territory ; the gods as well were conquered 



^^jL^iti^^^^^ium 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 65 

and became subject to him. But this increase of 
power itself emphasizes its hmitation. It is not 
world-wide, it is a power which actually embraces 
only the lands included in the empire. State- 
ments that go beyond this are general and rhetor- 
ical, parallel to the rhetorical phrases in which the 
king emphasizes his own power. 

Probably Ashur had less local limitation than 
any other Semitic deity. He was the head of the 
Assyrian pantheon, as Marduk of the Babylonian. 
But the worship of Marduk was closely connected 
with his city, Babylon; and he is usually men- 
tioned in connection with several other Babylo- 
nian gods who approach him quite closely in 
prominence, especially Nabu. Ashur, as well, 
was originally the god of the city Ashur; but his 
worship is never connected in any distinctly local 
sense with that city. Rather, as the country re- 
ceives his name along with the city, he becomes 
at an early date distinctly the national god rather 
than a city god. The uncertainty concerning the 
meaning and origin of the name Ashur does not 
materially affect the facts as stated. As a national 
god a new temple was built for him whenever the 
capital was moved, from Ashur to Kalkhi, and 
from Kalkhi to Nineveh; but the worship was 



66 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

Still continued in the others. He was distinctly 
the national god of Assyria, not of Babylonian 
origin, unless remotely. He was especially a war- 
like god, and as such his most distinctive repre- 
sentation was by a warlike standard carried from 
place to place. As the national warlike god he 
was regarded in a more exclusive way than any 
Babylonian god: no other god whom the Assyr- 
ians worshiped could approach him in power. 
Yet the Assyrian kings ordinarily mentioned other 
gods at the same time with him in their inscrip- 
tions. Adadnirari III placed special emphasis 
upon the worship of Nabu, and Shamash is men- 
tioned prominently along with Ashur, e. g., by 
Shalmaneser and Tiglathpileser HI. Ashur has 
no consort in any real sense, which gives a sug- 
gestion of exclusiveness. Yet this idea can easily 
be carried too far, especially in view of the facts 
previously mentioned. The facts do not warrant 
such extreme statements as are made by Sayce,^ 
" Assur consequently differs from the Babylonian 
gods, not only in the less narrowly local character 
that belongs to him, but also in his solitary nature. 
. . He is like the king of Assyria himself, brook- 
ing no rival, allowing neither wife nor son to 

1 " The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia," p. 37if. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 6/ 

share in the honors which he claims for himself 
alone. He is essentially a jealous god, and as 
such sends forth his Assyrian adorers to destroy 
his unbelieving foes. . . We can, in fact, trace 
in him all the lineaments upon which, under other 
conditions, there might have been built up as pure 
a faith as that of the God of Israel." 

Omnipresence. In the Old Testament this is 
emphatically taught in relation to Yahweh. Even 
in the earlier portions there can have been but 
little limitation on this point. It is the same God 
who is with Abraham in Ur, and Palestine, and 
with his descendants in Egypt, and later in Pales- 
tine. The freedom of Yahweh from the limita- 
tions of space is found with emphasis in such pas- 
sages as Gen. 28 : 15; Amos 9 : 2-4; Jer. 2^ : 
23f; Isa. 43 : 2; Ps. 139 : 5-10. The last pas- 
sage, and others show Yahweh in complete con- 
trol of Sheol, a control which in some of the ear- 
liar passages appears less definitely. 

The general conception in the other religions 
need be touched only briefly. Substantially it has 
been covered in what has been said already in 
reference to omnipotence. One of the limitations 
in power constitutes, of course, the chief limitation 
in reference to space, the conception of local gods. 



68 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

The conception was at most a national one: the 
presence of the god on earth does not extend be- 
yond the land in which he dwells, except as con- 
quest increases the dominion. The god goes no 
farther than the king does. 

Omniscience. This also is strongly asserted in 
reference to Yahweh in the Old Testament. It is 
associated closely with the other natural attri- 
butes, especially with omnipresence, in the Old 
Testament treatment. Many of the passages 
given in reference to omnipresence teach this as 
well. It is emphasized in the Old Testament that 
the knowledge of Yahweh embraces the universe. 
It also includes that which is hidden from men, 
especially the inner thoughts and purposes of in- 
dividuals. Particularly in the prophets Yahweh's 
knowledge of the future is emphasized; this is 
known to him as well as the present. He is there- 
fore able to make his plans with reference to the 
future, and has the power to carry out these plans. 

In the other religions the limitations already 
stated apply here as well. All the limitations pre- 
viously mentioned imply or demand limitation of 
knowledge also. The Old Testament concep- 
tion, just mentioned, of Yahweh's knowledge of 
the future course of events in the world is with- 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 69 

out parallel in the other religions. The Old Tes- 
tament prophecy which is based upon this con- 
ception thus stands by itself without a parallel in 
the other Semitic religions. 

The Babylonian penitential psalms indicate that 
the gods were considered to have an extensive 
knowledge of their worshipers. They knew es- 
pecially their failures and sins, some of which 
were unknown to the individuals themselves. 
This appears in the frequent appeal to the gods 
in reference to some offense unwittingly com- 
mitted. But this is not a knowledge as thorough 
as the Old Testament speaks of as belonging to 
Yahweh. 



Ill 

MORAL ATTRIBUTES 

IT is often thought that there is a fundamental 
conception of the Old Testament, that of the 
holiness of Yahweh, expressed by the root mp^ and 
derived words, which should be included at this 
point, on the ground that by holiness is meant 
ethical completeness. It therefore seems neces- 
sary to discuss a little this conception of holiness/ 
The meaning ethical completeness must be re- 
jected. There is very little to favor the meaning. 
There are only a few passages which seem to 
suggest it, in which holiness appears to be a strong 
general designation of the character and activity 
of Yahweh. In general, however, the use of the 
word does not suggest an ethical meaning, but a 
ritual. According to the usual treatment of the 
matter, it seems difficult to assign any very defi- 
nite meaning to holiness, particularly as used of 
God. In reference to men, animals, and material 

^ See especially the treatment of Baudissin, " Studien sur Semiti- 
schen Religionsgeschichte," II, pp. 1142. 

70 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 7I 

objects it is supposed to mean, and doubtless often 
does mean, consecrated to God; but this suggests 
no definite meaning for the word as appHed to 
God himself. 

Probably the most common view at the present 
time is that the root lyij^ meant originally to he 
separate, separated. Then this came to mean, 
when applied elsewhere than to God, separated 
from sin and uncleanness, and separated unto 
God. As used of God, it meant separation from 
created things, especially from their imperfection, 
sin, and uncleanness. It is conceded, however, 
that the meaning to he separate for the root is 
only conjectural, and is assigned on the supposi- 
tion that the original form of the root was np, 
which is found in other words having a general 
meaning to cut. This etymological basis, how- 
ever, is very uncertain; hence it seems to the 
present writer that there is no real evidence con- 
cerning the original meaning of the root. 

In Babylonian the verb is found, quddushu, 
with the usual meaning to make clean, ceremoni- 
ally; although the common meaning of the He- 
brew to dedicate to God seems to be the basis of 
the meaning of the Babylonian qadishtu, a temple 
prostitute. In Hebrew, also, as well as in Babylo^ 



'nil' T I'll iiilii " I 



72 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

nian, there are passages in which the words under 
discussion are apparently used simply of ceremo- 
nial cleanness, as in i Sam. 21:5. It is probable, 
therefore, that the earliest meaning which can 
now be traced is this, to he ceremonially clean. 
The first application of this meaning was doubt- 
less to men, animals, and material objects, not to 
God. But later it was applied to God, as deno- 
ting the one who is pure, free from all ceremonial 
uncleanness. Since, however, it is an essential 
condition that whatever is consecrated to God 
should be ceremonially clean, the word takes on 
this added meaning, consecrated to God, sacred. 
As used of God, the word also assumes various 
connotations, to some extent adding an ethical 
idea to the ceremonial, although the latter remains 
always the prominent conception. As the thought 
of the word suggests a contrast with many human 
and material objects, it gains an added significance 
along this line, suggesting somewhat the power of 
God. It is interesting, however, in this connec- 
tion, to note that Ezekiel, the ritual prophet, uses 
holy of Yahweh, but never righteous; while his 
contemporary, Jeremiah, reverses the usage, never 
applying holy to Yahweh, except in chap. 50 and 
51, probably later than Jeremiah in their present 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS J}^ 

form, although in 23 : 9 he applies it to the 
words of Yahweh. 

In Babylonian, as has been said, the common 
meaning of the word is the early one, to he clean, 
ceremonially, or, as there used in the intensive 
stem, to make clean. In Hebrew this meaning is 
found in a few cases. This meaning is also found 
in the application of the word to Yahweh in He- 
brew, although with additional connotations, as 
has been noted. The word is applied to the gods, 
outside of Hebrew, only in the Phoenician, so far 
as has been found. In the inscription of Eshmu- 
nazar in that language (11. 9 and 22),^ the gods are 
called Diynpn DiSxn and Ds^ipn djSk, the holy gods. 
The meaning here is evidently similar to that in 
the Hebrew when applied to Yahweh. The de- 
rived meaning, to consecrate to god, is found in 
the Babylonian qadishtu, as noted, and is the com- 
mon meaning in the Hebrew, when applied to ob- 
jects other than God. The same use is found in 
Phoenician, Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic. 

So far as these words are concerned, then, they 
do not show any general ethical conception of the 
character of Yahweh, as is often thought. The 
conception of holiness, in fact, in the Old Testa- 

1 CIS I, 3. 



74 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

ment has to do with Yahweh in relation to ritual 
matters. The prominent thought is that Yahweh 
is ceremonially pure, and as such demands clean- 
ness and abhors uncleanness. This ritual concep- 
tion is evidently based upon an original physical 
idea of the divine ; yet it seems clear that this phy- 
sical thought is not retained in the Old Testa- 
ment. Nevertheless, this ceremonial side of the 
conception of God is found, which is based upon 
the common-Semitic ideas. The ritual legislation, 
where this idea is largely found, presents then, in 
general, a more primitive conception of Yahweh 
than is found elsewhere. 

Aside from the ritual legislation, the presenta- 
tion of the character of Yahweh is distinctly ethi- 
cal — ethical completeness belongs to him. This 
is not shown in any one word so much as in the 
whole treatment of the character of God : he has 
regard to the ethical as well as the religious life 
of men, and demands of them moral acts; see 
also what is said later under righteousness. Im- 
moral acts are forbidden, sometimes specifically, 
e. g., in the case of prostitution, in connection with 
the worship of Yahweh. The prophets, psalmists, 
and wisdom writers present the character of Yah- 
weh as thoroughly ethical. This is the distinctive 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 75 

feature of the Old Testament teaching concern- 
ing the moral character of Yahweh. 

There is no conception like this in the other re- 
ligions. Such an idea as ethical completeness is 
not found in connection with any of their gods. 
For the most part the gods of the other Semitic 
religions are non-moral, as is natural with gods 
derived from the forces of nature. This means 
that there is no moral side to their character. 
Some gods are immoral; they sanction or com- 
mand acts which are immoral. Among the Assyr- 
ians and Babylonians this was true especially of 
Ishtar of Babylonia, who was worshiped with 
prostitution. The Ishtar cult was certainly widely 
extended among the Semites, and this was doubt- 
less a usual feature of the worship.^ Where eth- 
ical traits are found in the teachings concerning 
the gods, they are incomplete, it is only isolated 
features that appear. For the consideration of 
Nielsen's view of early common-Semitic ethical 
monotheism, see the treatment under monotheism. 

There are several specific moral attributes of 
Yahweh emphasized in the Old Testament which 
should be noticed briefly. 

Faithfulness. Faithfulness or trustworthiness 

1 See especially Barton, "A Sketch of Semitic Origins," pp. 42f, 84, 



76 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

is one of the most prominent of these attributes. 
In the Old Testament treatment this is regarded 
as one of the notable results of Yahweh's eternity : 
because he continues from age to age, his plans 
and purposes, his character, are the same. This 
is a trait which gives encouragement to his wor- 
shipers : their treatment will be in accord with his 
well-known character, not arbitrary or erratic. 
The uniformity of his attitude can be depended 
on: he acts in accordance with fixed principles. 
The presence of ritual offenses only slightly modi- 
fies this, because, as will be seen later, the ritual 
element is not to be regarded as the culmination 
of the Old Testament, and is held, in fact, within 
narrowly circumscribed limits. 

It is only to a slight extent that this trait can 
be discerned in any of the other Semitic religions. 
The way in which the favor of any of the gods 
could be secured and held was a matter on which 
no definite information could be obtained. Mis- 
fortune was really the only indication that any- 
thing was wrong in the relations with the gods. 
The nation, and the king as its principal represent- 
ative, could depend on the favor of the gods as 
no individual was able to do. Yet national dis- 
aster was not unknown, indicating the anger of 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 77 

some god, an anger that might be due merely 
to divine caprice. In individual life, especially, 
there were no fixed principles of divine favor. 
This might be won by moral character, but chiefly 
by ritual, especially sacrifices, or by magical in- 
cantations. In Babylonia the last was the most 
certain way, while among all the Semitic nations 
sacrifice was very prominent. In all these relig- 
ions the ritual and magical element is the promi- 
nent feature: it is not to an appreciable extent 
replaced by anything higher. No stress was laid, 
further, upon a continuance of the same divine 
character from age to age. As a matter of fact, 
the general character of each god did remain the 
same, for the most part, but in the aggregate 
there was considerable change. This is specially 
noticeable among the Babylonians and the Egyp- 
tians, where there was a large amount of assimi- 
lation of the deities to each other, obscuring the 
individuality of each, so that phrases originally 
specially appropriate to one were applied almost 
indiscriminately. Further, among the Babylo- 
nians, at least, there were two or more well- 
marked phases in the character of several of the 
prominent gods, which must have discouraged 
still more any belief in faithfulness as an element 



78 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

of divine character: e. g,, Shamash was the god 
of war and of justice. 

Righteousness. This attribute is expressed in 
Hebrew by the word pn^ and its derivatives. The 
fundamental idea of the word is not certain, but 
it seems to be that that is righteous which is right 
in the highest sense. The righteousness of Yah- 
weh is used in two ways especially. In the 
broader sense it is a comprehensive term, sug- 
gesting an idea somewhat like the ethical com- 
pleteness of God, if not directly expressing it. In 
such a meaning as this it is without parallel among 
the other Semitic religions, as already noted. 
This idea may also be somewhat restricted, indi- 
cating the ethical completeness of Yahweh with 
special reference to some particular attribute. In 
the other way, the narrower sense, the righteous- 
ness of Yahweh is his justice, by virtue of which 
he gives to each man his due, in reward or pun- 
ishment. In this sense a comparison may profit- 
ably be made. Here and there it may be that 
there are limitations to the teaching of the justice 
of Yahweh, especially in the earlier parts of the 
Old Testament. But the general teaching of the 
Old Testament is that Yahweh deals with men in 
accordance with their real deserts. The justice of 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 79 

Yahweh is seen more especially in relation to 
national affairs. The chosen nation, Israel, was 
destined for blessings. But this, it was always 
understood, was only on condition that they obey 
Yahweh. Yet this condition was often forgotten 
by the people generally, so that undoubtedly the 
popular idea, especially shortly before the exile, 
was that Yahweh must inevitably favor his own 
people; it was impossible that he should destroy 
them on account of sin. But the prophets gave 
no encouragement to this idea, and a large part 
of their teaching was the insistence upon Yah- 
weh's justice. If the nation sins it will be pun- 
ished, even destroyed. The special privileges of 
the chosen nation but increase its guilt, and there- 
fore the certainty of punishment (Amos 3:2). 
Foreign nations are agents in the hands of Yah- 
weh for the punishment of Israel, and conse- 
quently they are given the victory. Yet these for- 
eign nations also are in his power, and he will 
deal justly with them; ultimately they shall be 
punished as well. The justice of Yahweh in his 
dealings with all nations is emphasized in such 
passages as Isa. 3 : 13; 2 : 19, 21 ; 10 : 23; 14 : 
26; 28 : 22. The relation of the individual to 
Yahweh is not neglected, however, in thinking of 



8o THE OLD TESTAMENT 

the nation. The justice of God is shown clearly 
in relation to the individual. This is emphasized 
especially in some of the later prophets, as in Jer. 
31 : 29, 30; Ezek. 18, and often in the wisdom 
literature. 

Such a conception of impartial justice between 
individuals and nations is not met with outside 
of the Old Testament. The localization of gods 
meant the localization of justice as well. The 
conception of national gods meant that such a god 
had no relation to other peoples except that of 
hostility. Justice w^as inconceivable in reference 
to dealings with other nations. National disaster 
was attributed to divine anger, but the grounds 
of the anger could only imperfectly be grasped ; it 
was not based chiefly upon divine justice. On 
a smaller scale, the conception that any god was 
concerned with exact justice to individuals was 
held only to a limited extent. The prevalence of 
magic showed lack of confidence in the justice of 
the deities as well as in their faithfulness. In 
the character of most of the gods justice does not 
appear at all. Hardly a trace of the conception of 
divine justice can be found except in Babylonia, 
South Arabia, and Egypt. In Babylonia justice 
cannot be called a trait in the character of any 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 8 1 

god except Shamash, although the connection of 
the gods with each other leads to occasional al- 
lusions to it in the case of other gods. Shamash 
is the " great judge of heaven and earth," ^ and 
as such is the god of justice. It is from Shamash 
that Hammurabi says he received his code of 
laws. Shalmaneser II calls Shamash *' the judge 
of the four quarters of the world, who leads aright 
mankind." ^ And it was a fairly exalted idea of 
justice that was found in connection with him. 
Hammurabi uses such expressions as these, " By 
the command of Shamash, the great judge of 
heaven and earth, may I make righteousness to 
shine forth on the land." " Let any oppressed 
man, who has a cause, come before my image as 
king of righteousness ! " ''In the days that are 
yet to come, for all future time, may the king who 
is in the land observe the words of righteousness 
which I have written upon my monument." 
" That the strong might not oppress the weak, 
and that they should give justice to the orphan 
and the widow." ^ 

Yet this is only one phase of the character of 
Shamash. As a sun-god he has the limitation of 

1 Hammurabi, Code, col. XL, 1. Ssf. « Monolith, col. I, 1. 3. 

sCode, col. XL : 11. 84-88; col. XLI : II. 1-5, 59-65; col. XL : 11. 
59-62. 



82 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

that material connection. He is also a god of 
war, in which phase of his character justice was 
obviously subordinate. His justice had to do with 
externals. He favored kings not because they 
were righteous, but because they claimed to be 
righteous. He is prominent in the incantation 
texts, where no clear idea of justice can be per- 
ceived. These things limit the conception of jus- 
tice, even in the case of Shamash. 

In the Egyptian religion Osiris is the only 
prominent god whose character shows a concep- 
tion of justice. He was originally a man, it is 
said, conspicuous for righteousness and mercy. 
In his character as judge of men after death he 
takes into account prominently their moral char- 
acter as determining their destiny. Yet in other 
representations of the future life, ritual observ- 
ances have chiefly to do with the final condition. 
In general, the prominence of ritual and magic 
obscures the Egyptian conception of divine 
justice. 

In the South-Arabic religion, the only material 
so far available showing a conception of divine 
justice is in the proper names already referred to. 
Here are found such names as tsadaq-ilu, god is 
righteous. This, of course, without further evi- 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 83 

dence, can only indicate that there were traces of 
the conception of divine justice in tfiis reHgion. 

Love, including mercy and grace. Mercy is 
help to the needy; grace, favor to the undeserv- 
ing. Both are prominent in all the Old Testa- 
ment. Love, in some respects a stronger term, is 
emphasized chiefly in the prophets. It is es- 
pecially from the grace of God that forgiveness of 
sins comes and must come, since man is always 
undeserving by reason of sin. These qualities are 
ordinarily manifested toward Israel, although it 
is a part of the prophetic expectation that the 
nations shall in the future share in the grace and 
forgiveness of Yahweh. Some instances are found 
of this participation in the present time; such is 
the prominent lesson of the book of Jonah. The 
love of Yahweh clothes itself in the forms of 
human relationship — father, husband — yet it is 
not a physical love but an ethical; it is found in 
the prophets who constantly insist upon the rela- 
tionship of Yahweh to his people on the ethical 
side. 

This attribute is undoubtedly found to a large 
extent in all the religions under consideration. 
In the general Semitic conception the gods are 
favorable to men. Yet in polytheism, while some 



84 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

of the gods love, others hate. From early times, 
however, the unfavorable deities have usually 
occupied a subordinate place, so that in the Bab- 
ylonian religion they are largely, but not en- 
tirely, spirits rather than gods, and among the 
Arabs they are the jinns. Mercy and grace, 
leading to forgiveness, are sought by the sup- 
pliants in the Babylonian prayers. But, like 
other features of the religion, in the general 
Semitic conception the love and mercy lack an 
ethical basis; they are rather like ordinary hu- 
man love. The cause of an unfavorable attitude 
of the deity is not certainly known; the princi- 
ples upon which it can be removed are not defi- 
nitely settled, although in general they are ritual 
and magical rather than ethical; and the corre- 
sponding principles upon which love and mercy 
depend are obscure. Further, love and mercy 
have always the local limitations. 



PART III 



MAN 



SIN 

THERE are, of course, certain questions in 
relation to man that precede the question 
of sin. These are especially those that relate to 
the creation, nature, and constitution of man. But 
at this point there is very little material for com- 
parison. The accounts in Genesis say that Yah- 
weh created man. The principal creation tablet 
of the Babylonians already referred to, enuma 
elish, says that Marduk of Babylon created man. 
The fragment from Eridu attributes this to Mar- 
duk of Eridu, originally distinct from Marduk of 
Babylon. The small fragment in which Ashur ap- 
pears as the creator does not mention the creation 
of man. This, however, is doubtless due to its 
fragmentary condition. It is, therefore, the teach- 
ing of the Babylonians as of the Old Testament 
that man originated by divine creation, although 
in the separate Babylonian recensions the act is 
assigned to various gods. There is no clear Sem- 
itic teaching, beyond this, concerning the nature 

87 



88 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

and constitution of man which can be compared 
with the Old Testament statements. 

There can be Httle question that the other Sem- 
itic reHgions agree with the Old Testament in 
holding to the universality of sin, in some sense of 
the term. This is seen from the universality of 
sacrifice, some forms of which, as will be seen, 
presuppose sin. It is seen more clearly, in the 
Babylonian religion, from the so-called peniten- 
tial psalms, pra3^ers, etc., in which there is confes- 
sion of sin. The Old Testament account of the 
fall of man is undoubtedly intended to teach the 
origin of human sin with the first man. No 
parallel to this Old Testament account has been 
found elsewhere, the supposed Babylonian paral- 
lel, consisting simply of a picture, is of uncertain 
meaning, and it is by no means clear that it has 
any such reference. 

From a comparison of the different religions, 
as will be seen more fully later, it seems reason- 
ably certain that the early conception of sin 
among the Semites was the doing of that which 
is displeasing to the gods. But in this early con- 
ception, further, the gods cared only for human 
action so far as it directly concerned them; 
hence sin consisted in transgression of the regu- 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 89 

lations in connection with the sacrifices or other 
features of worship. It thus had to do with ritual 
acts, and not with one's relation to his fellow- 
man. Such a conception of sin is not only in 
harmony with the early ideas concerning the 
gods, as just noted, but is also indicated as the 
common-Semitic idea by the fact that it is the 
prominent element in the ideas of sin among the 
Semitic nations generally, except among the He- 
brews, and their religion has traces of such a con- 
ception. The early Semitic conception of sin, 
then, had no ethical character. It was also with- 
out fixed principles, it depended simply upon the 
will of the gods, and that will, being non-ethical, 
was capricious; besides, an act might be dis- 
pleasing to one god that was pleasing to another. 

There was but one infallible indication of sin 
in this early conception, its results. Sin brings 
punishment without fail. Sickness, disaster, mis- 
fortune, death, all are simply the results of sin. 
These, however, do not show what is wrong, but 
only that some sin has been committed. It is 
necessarily uncertain what the sin is in any par- 
ticular case. 

If such is the early Semitic conception, how far 
has it been retained and how far modified among 



90 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

the several nations ? The most definite informa- 
tion available is concerning the Babylonians, but 
certain indications among the other nations point 
also to the conclusion that this early conception 
has been retained without any great modification 
among all the nations except the Hebrews. 

Among the Babylonians the prevailing concep- 
tion is simply that which has been indicated ; sin is 
of a ritual nature. There are among this people 
many tablets dealing with religious subjects in 
which the matter of sin is treated. These are ar- 
ranged in several series. In most of the tablets, 
it is stated by Morgenstern,^ it is only ritual sin 
that is recognized ; in but one series, called Shur- 
pu, are ethical acts included with ritual, although 
without distinction between them. This is in har- 
mony with the prevailing non-ethical conception 
of the divine character among the Babylonians, 
with some traces of ethical elements. 

The question may arise in what way moral 
offenses came to be included, even to a slight ex- 
tent, with the ritual. It is obvious that, on the 
ritual conception, the gods were considered to be 
selfish : if they themselves were treated with due 
honor they were not concerned about the treat- 

^ " The Doctrine of Sin in the Babylonian Religion," p. 2. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS QI 

ment of one man by another. The rise of any 
concern of this kind probably came along the line 
of the relation of the god to the tribe; he was 
physically connected with the tribe. Hence, he was 
interested for the general welfare of the tribe, and 
at first for particular individuals simply in rela- 
tion to the whole. But with the growth of indi- 
vidualism, especially arising from change of cus- 
toms, advance in civilization, and increase of 
individual possessions, came inevitably some con- 
ception of the care of the god for individuals, 
even when not directly connected with the gen- 
eral tribal welfare. When, under these circum- 
stances, one individual appealed to the god for 
redress of an injury done by another, it would be 
necessary for the god, in their conception, to pay 
some attention to this appeal, and consequently 
to punish the offender against his fellow-man, 
i. e.j his fellow-tribesman. Thus was developed 
some conception of sin toward one's fellow-man, 
but only within the tribe : such a thing as sin to- 
ward those outside the tribe or nation was un- 
known. 

Among the Babylonians it was thought that all 
punishment for sin was inflicted directly by de- 
mons. At first these were merely the instruments 



92 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

of the greater gods, the real gods. But after a 
time the demons were considered to work to a 
large extent independently, in subordination to 
the gods, yet usually without direct connection 
with them. The demons hated men and took de- 
light in inflicting misfortune on them. The gods 
were sufliciently powerful to prevent the demons 
from injuring one, yet often they were rather in- 
different than otherwise, which attitude gave the 
demons their opportunity. In sickness the de- 
mons were considered to be actually present in 
the body; hence sickness itself made one unclean, 
and was therefore not only the result of sin but 
itself a sin. All dealings with the demons were 
naturally on a purely ritual basis. 

The early teaching that all misfortune is the 
result of sin was thus retained in the Babylonian 
conception. The connection was apparently often 
thought of as indirect rather than direct. The in- 
dividual had not been sufficiently zealous in keep- 
ing the favorable attention of the greater gods so 
that they would ward off the attacks of the de- 
mons. The idea of the activity of the demons was 
further extended, also, in connection with the 
witches. These were persons through whom the 
demons especially worked to the injury of others. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 93 

Yet these were often considered really to have 
control of the activity of the demons. In that 
case, then, the individual who suffered from the 
activity of the witches was injured directly by 
reason of human hostility, that of the witch. 
Possibly here is to be found some not unnatural 
inconsistency in the representation, L e., if suf- 
fering comes as a result of human hostility it 
does not seem that sin has directly to do with it. 
Yet the prominent idea apparently was that some 
remissness in relation to the gods, i. e., some sin, 
had caused them so far to relax their vigilance as 
to give the witches an opportunity for the exercise 
of their arts. 

Among the other Semitic nations, aside from 
the Babylonians and the Hebrews, indications that 
the view of sin is in general the early one here 
stated come chiefly from the prominence of sac- 
rifice and ritual, and from the absence of positive 
statements to show any real prevalence of an ethic- 
al conception. This is a summary of the state of 
the case among the Arabs before Muhammad, the 
Southern Arabs, the Arameans, and the Phoeni- 
cians. W. Robertson Smith, evidently basing his 
view chiefly upon Arabic customs, speaks of " a 
very primitive type of religion, in which the sense 



94 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

of sin, in any proper sense of the word, did not 
exist at all, and the whole object of ritual was to 
maintain the bond of physical holiness that kept 
the religious community together." ^ Among the 
Arabs before Muhammad, according to Wellhau- 
sen, the ordinary worship was simply ritual, and 
the idea of sin was ritual. There was some de- 
velopment of tribal duties, but this was imperfect, 
while there were no duties to any man outside the 
tribe. Further, this idea of morality within the 
tribe, according to Wellhausen, arose from the 
sense of relationship to the tribe and not from the 
religion; although this, it seems to the present 
writer, was indirectly religious, because of the 
conception of the physical connection of the god 
with the tribe. There was, however, as a late 
development, a worship of Allah which had little 
connection with the cult, in which there was a 
broader development of the ethical idea.^ Hence, 
it would seem that the Arabic conception was 
very similar to the Babylonian, the early idea of 
sin was simply ritual, but ultimately acts in the 
sphere of morals were also included, although not 
so as to supersede the other conception. 

1 " Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., p. 401. 

2 " Reste Arabischen Heidentums," 2d ed., passim, especially p. 
219 seq. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 95 

We come to a consideration of the Old Testa- 
ment teaching. It is of course generally recog- 
nized that the Old Testament regards as sins acts 
both in the moral and in the ceremonial sphere. 
The actual relation between the two conceptions, 
however, is much disputed. In view of what has 
already been presented, it seems clear that the 
Old Testament treatment of ceremonial acts as 
sins is based upon the common-Semitic view al- 
ready presented, and is in fact substantially the 
same, although with differences in detail. The 
underlying principle, so far as these acts are con- 
cerned, is the one already enunciated: sin is rit- 
ual ; any variation from the prescribed ceremonies 
is sin. This goes so far that in the Old Testa- 
ment uncleanness is treated as sin, even when it 
comes from natural causes, as from an accidental 
occurrence, or disease, or childbirth. Thus un- 
cleanness resulting from unavoidable contact of 
a Nazirite with a dead body is called sin (Num. 
6 : 9-1 1 ), " If any man die very suddenly beside 
him, and he defile the head of his separation ; then 
he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, 
on the seventh day shall he shave it. And on the 
eighth day he shall bring two turtle doves, or two 
young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the 



96 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

tent of meeting ; and the priest shall offer one for 
a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, 
and make atonement for him, for that he sinned 
by reason of the dead, and shall hallow his head 
that same day." A sin offering is also prescribed 
in the graver cases of uncleanness, for a leper 
who has been cleansed (Lev. 14 : 19), a man 
who has an issue (Lev. 15 : 15), and a woman 
after childbirth (Lev. 12 : 6, 8), as well as for 
the uncleanness of a Nazirite (Num. 6 : 11), 
above mentioned. Apparently similar is the sin 
offering for the Nazirite after the completion 
of the time of his vow (Num. 6 : 14). Prob- 
ably passages such as Num. 19 : 13, 20, where 
it is said that the unclean person who will not 
purify himself shall be cut off from the assembly, 
should not be included directly here, since the 
conception probably is that the punishment was 
not so much for the uncleanness as for the per- 
sistent disobedience. It is doubtless a result of 
this earlier conception that moral -'n is often 
spoken of as uncleanness, even by the prophets, 
as in Isa. i : 16; 6 : 5; Jer. 33 : 8; Lam. 4 : 
I4f. This iorm of expression probably has come 
to be used because the earlier conception of sin 
as ritual, i. e., as uncleanness, was broadened so 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 97 

as to embrace also moral sins, which then were in- 
cluded under the term uncleanness or defilement. 
As the prophets use the language, however, it 
probably does not represent the distinctly pro- 
phetic view, but rather the employment of lan- 
guage in common use. 

Except in the distinctly ritual portions, how- 
ever, the Old Testament for the most part pre- 
sents another view. In harmony with the lofty 
ethical character of Yahweh, taught in the Old 
Testament, it is inevitable that there should be 
an ethical view of sin. It is true, of course, that 
sin is that which is opposed to the will of Yah- 
weh. But this will is regarded as a comprehen- 
sive thing, it embraces all one's relations with his 
fellow-men, as well as directly with Yahweh. 
In the teaching of prophets, psalmists, and wis- 
dom writers, therefore, the emphasis is laid upon 
sins of an ethical nature, injustice, oppression, 
robbery, murder, etc. And when the direct rela- 
tion to Yahweh is in mind, the thought is usually 
not of the details of the ritual, but of the general 
question of loyalty to Yahweh or rejection of 
him. 

In brief, then, we find in the Old Testament a 
conception that sin is of a ritual nature, which is 



98 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

esentially the same as the early common-Semitic 
conception. This is found chiefly in the Levitical 
legislation. There are also indications in the 
Old Testament of an advance from this view to 
the one found among the Babylonians, that sin, 
of a ritual nature, may include moral transgres- 
sions as well. A further step is taken, however, 
in which the Old Testament teaching is distinct- 
ive : sin is recognized as in principle of an ethical 
nature, and hence of a fixed character, embra- 
cing all possible relations, in harmony with the 
teaching concerning Yahweh as a God of an 
ethical character, who cares for all human ac- 
tivities and relations. 



II 

SALVATION THROUGH SACRIFICE 

REDEMPTION, as ordinarily used, means 
deliverance from sin and its effects : salva- 
tion includes this and also the positive blessings 
that flow from such deliverance. Practically, 
then, salvation, speaking in common-Semitic 
terms, means the answer to the question, In what 
ways can man, who is a sinner, so far remove the 
effects of sin in relation to the gods that he can 
obtain and keep their favor ? Various answers to 
this question are found among the Semites; the 
one common answer is through sacrifice, which 
will first be considered. 

The present discussion is limited to this life, 
as it is that which is chiefly considered both in the 
Old Testament and in the literature of the other 
Semitic nations. The conception of the future 
life will be treated by itself. 

It will be necessary to consider first certain gen- 
eral features of Semitic sacrifices; after that the 
significance will be discussed. 

99 



lOO THE OLD TESTAMENT 

Place and time of sacrifices. In the earlier Old 
Testament usage sacrifice was offered in many 
places. Later the worship was centralized, and sac- 
rifices were required to be offered at one place — 
the temple at Jerusalem. In the common-Semitic 
usage there is a measure of centralization of wor- 
ship, but nothing so definite as in this later Old 
Testament regulation. Of course, in any polythe- 
istic system there is worship in many places, to 
different gods. Regularly, however, there was a 
central point for the worship of each god, the tem- 
ple at the city where its worship was especially lo- 
calized. But, in general, any god could also be 
worshiped in other localities. In Babylonia and 
Assyria the goddess Ishtar was worshiped with al- 
most equal honor at several cities, although she be- 
came thus practically separated into distinct deities. 
Further, certain tendencies, especially the monar- 
chical, led in Babylonia and Assyria to the build- 
ing of temples and altars to many other deities 
around those of the chief god of a prominent city, 
their subordination being indicated in this way, 
or to the placing of other images in the temple of 
the special god of the city. Thus there were no 
less than thirteen sacred edifices in Lagash used 
for the worship of as many gods, and in the old 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I OX 

temple in the city of Ashur approximately twenty 
deities were worshiped/ 

It is usually thought that centralization of wor- 
ship among the Hebrews resulted from practical 
considerations, by reason of the abuses resulting 
from worship at the ** high places." While this 
may have had some force, it seems evident that 
centralization was in harmony with the early idea 
of sacrifice. In this early idea, as we shall see, 
sacrifice was a clan matter, conducted usually by 
the whole clan, and doubtless ordinarily at the 
same place. This communal idea was preserved 
to a considerable extent in the peace offering, but 
much less in the burnt offering. Yet, in general, 
the relation to the community was preserved 
among the Hebrews more than among the other 
nations : the sacrifice always had some reference 
to the national life. Hence, when the unity of the 
whole nation became prominent, it was natural 
that this communal side of the worship should be 
emphasized by its centralization. 

Concerning the time and circumstances of 
sacrifice, little difference is to be observed. In all 
the Semitic nations sacrifice was both national 
and individual : the relation between these differ- 

^ Jastrow, " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," pp. 635, 637. 



102 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

ent forms will be considered in connection with 
their significance. National sacrifices were of- 
fered on any important occasion, such as a feast 
or special day of any kind. In Babylonia there 
was daily sacrifice as well as in Israel. This is 
well established for the cities of Borsippa, Sippar, 
Kutha, and Nineveh, and probably was practised 
elsewhere also.^ Individual sacrifices could evi- 
dently be offered at any convenient occasion 
among all the nations. 

In all the nations priests have a prominent part. 
They are called by the same name among the He- 
brews, Arabs, and Phoenicians. Among the Min- 
3eans the priests and priestesses are called «^V and 
nxiS which may be connected with the Hebrew 
')b.^ Among the Arabs alone they have nothing 
directly to do with the sacrifices, which are of- 
fered by the one who brings them. This Is doubt- 
less connected with the fact that in Arabia the 
offering is the pouring out of the blood on the 
sacred stone, so that it is in reality a part of the 
act of slaughtering. There the priest was the 
guardian of the holy place and the one who gave 
oracles, especially by lot. The priesthood was 

1 Jastrow, " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 667. 
^Hommel, " Siid-arabische Chrestomathie," p. 127. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS IO3 

hereditary. In all the other Semitic nations the 
offering was ordinarily performed by the priest, 
with some exceptions in the early Old Testament 
usage. Little information beyond that just 
stated is at hand in reference to the Carthaginian 
priests. In the Old Testament the priesthood was 
hereditary, in Babylonia at any rate largely so. 
The two nations had similar regulations concern- 
ing the physical perfection of the priests. The 
chief difference between the Babylonians and the 
Hebrews was in the wider range of priestly activi- 
ties among the former people. It was the priests 
who had charge of incantations and omens, as 
well as sacrifice, practices which are forbidden in 
the Old Testament. Those in Babylonia whose 
work was most like that of the Old Testament 
prophets were there a branch of the priesthood. 
In Babylonia the king was regarded as in some 
sense the head of the priests,^ as he never was 
among the Hebrews. Presumably this means that 
the early prominence of the priests was such that 
it was from priestly families that the kings came. 
Yet this preeminence became nominal, the king 
himself needing the intercession of the priests.^ 

ijastrow, "Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 655f. 
^ Jastrow, " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 692. 



I04 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

The power of the priests was very great in Bab- 
ylonia. This doubtless resulted from the great 
prominence of ritual which only the priests knew 
how to perform, and partly from the related 
reason that the priests were distinctly the edu- 
cated class. 

The materials used in sacrifice have a gen- 
eral similarity among all the nations, although 
with some variations. Ordinarily the animals 
sacrificed are clean domestic animals, although 
not all of these are allowed to be used. The sac- 
rificial animals among the Hebrews were cattle, 
sheep, goats, turtle-doves, and pigeons. Among 
the Phoenicians, at least at Carthage and vicinity, 
they were cattle, sheep, goats, domestic birds, deer 
(^k), young (?) deer (Vk any), wild birds (?) 
(ya), and game (ny).^ Among the Babylonians 
the sacrificial animals included cattle, sheep, goats, 
gazelles, fish, and birds.^ The favorite animal sac- 
rifice, however, and the one especially mentioned 
in the sacrificial regulations which have been 
found, was the lamb. The sacrificial animals of 
the Arabs were camels, sheep, and cattle.^ Camels 
were also eaten by the Arabs, although neither 

1 Marseilles Tablet, CIS, I, 165. 

2 See especially inscription of Gudea, KB, III, pp. 60-65. 
'Wellhausen, " Reste arabischen Heidentums," 26. ed., p. 115. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I05 

eaten nor sacrificed by the Hebrews. Gazelles 
were also sacrificed by the Arabs, although re- 
garded as an imperfect substitute for a sheep. 

Among all the Semitic nations there were 
bloodless offerings as well. The materials for 
these in the Old Testament were meal, oil, in- 
cense, and wine, together with salt. In Babylonia, 
they were honey, butter — these two usually mixed 
— milk, dates, figs, oil, salt, incense, wine of all 
kinds, water, and perhaps other things.^ Among 
the Arabs the principal materials were meal and 
milk : incense was not used, and oil and wine but 
rarely.^ Among the Phoenicians the materials 
were meal, fruit, oil, incense, milk, and fat.^ 

The general principle seems to have been the 
same among all the Semitic nations, covering all 
the sacrifices : the sacrifices were taken from the 
ordinary food of the people, but probably did not 
in any case include all articles of ordinary food. 
There may have been various reasons for the 
omission of specific articles. Milk is omitted 
from the Hebrew list alone. Fat is included in 
the minha by the Phoenicians, while in the Old 
Testament the fat of the intestines is always a 

1 KAT, 3d ed., p. sggf. 

2 Wellhausen, " Reste arabischen Heidentums," 26. ed., p. 114; 
W. Robertson Smith, " Religion of the Semites," 26. ed., p. 220. 

3 CIS, I, i65f. 



I06 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

part of a bloody offering, and is burned upon the 
altar, so that its use is forbidden as food.^ Spe- 
cially notable is the use of honey in the Babylonian 
ritual, which is expressly forbidden in the Old 
Testament.^ This is perhaps an illustration of 
another principle in the Old Testament regula- 
tions, viz., the avoidance of some materials for 
sacrifice used by the surrounding nations, possi- 
bly to remove temptations to idolatry. 

The different kinds of sacrifices. The division 
of sacrifices according to their meaning needs 
consideration at this point. The animal sacrifices 
are doubtless earlier than the vegetable, and show 
more characteristic differences of meaning, al- 
though vegetable offerings may sometimes be 
substituted for animal. In the Old Testament 
there are two principal types of animal sacrifice, 
the burnt offering (nV;;;) and the peace offering 
(na.T. u)^, D^pbs^ nnr). The other sacrifices of the 
Old Testament are of minor importance in this 
connection, and need not be discussed particularly 
here. In the burnt offering practically the whole 
animal w^as burnt upon the altar ; while the peace 
offering was a sacrificial meal — most of the ani- 
mal was eaten in a sacred meal by the offerer and 

*Lev. 3 : 17. 'Lev. 2 : 11. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS ID/ 

Others associated with him. The apparent mean- 
ing of the burnt offering was that of a gift to 
God, but not an ordinary gift — a gift to secure in 
some way the expiation of sin ; while the meaning 
of the peace offering, apparently, was the fellow- 
ship between men and God, and among men, the 
worshipers. 

These two types of sacrifice are found ordi- 
narily among the Semitic nations. The usual sac- 
rifice among the Arabs is of the nature of the 
peace offering. The other form of sacrifice, the 
burnt offering, is found in the case of human sac- 
rifices, but it is doubtful whether it is found at 
all in other cases. ^ Fire was only used with hu- 
man sacrifices. The altar was a sacred stone 
where the blood was applied. If any sacrifices 
corresponding to the burnt offering are found, 
aside from human sacrifices, the flesh was not 
burned but left by the altar, and doubtless eaten 
by wild beasts. There are, however, the two types 
of Old Testament sacrifices, but the one corre- 
sponding to the burnt offering is comparatively 
uncommon. The inscriptions of the Southern 
Arabs make little mention of sacrifices. There is 
thought to be specific evidence of the existence of 

^ W. Robertson Smith, " Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., pp. 229, 
386. 



I08 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

the peace offering with the name nb^, as in He- 
brew.^ 

It seems clear that the Phoenician Carthagin- 
ians had the two kinds corresponding quite 
closely to the Old Testament.^ The one corre- 
sponding to the Old Testament burnt offering is 
known as b'bj, clearly the Hebrew b'^2, an infre- 
quent term used instead of nbi;; for the burnt 
offering, meaning whole, holocaust. The one 
probably corresponding to the Old Testament 
peace offering is called n;^)^. Various conjec- 
tures have been made concerning the etymological 
significance of this word, but none that seem at 
all conclusive. The disposition of the flesh corre- 
sponds partially to that in the Old Testament, as 
will be seen more fully later. In the Wd a por- 
tion of the flesh by weight is assigned to the 
priests; in the n;^iv certain specified members of 
the body are given to the priests, and others to the 
offerer. There is no express mention of fire in 
these Phoenician inscriptions. It is clearly im- 
plied, however, and there is frequent mention of 
altars. It seems evident that in these sacrifices 
the portions not expressly mentioned, or most of 

1 Weber, " Arahien vor dem Islam," p. 2of; Jeremias, "Das alte 
Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients," 2d ed., p. 433. 

2 CIS. I, 165, 167. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS IO9 

them, are burned. In that case all the h^bo was 
burned except the portion specified for the priests, 
while it was comparatively a small portion of the 
n;riv that was burned, as will be seen more fully. 
This makes a general correspondence with the 
Old Testament. There is also mention of obiJ^ b'bD» 
It seems probable that dVk^ is Hebrew d'p.e?, but in 
what way it is used here is doubtful, since n>*iv, 
as has been indicated, seems to designate the 
sacrifice of which d^i^ is used in Hebrew, and it 
is uncertain in what way obu^ can be connected 
with Vbo. ub^ y!?3 is evidently used as a distinct 
variety of sacrifice along with the other two, but 
it is apparently subordinate, since it does not ap- 
pear in the more detailed statements. It is per- 
haps a variety of the Vbo. There is also mention 
of two other forms of sacrifice, ^'n^ and n?n,^ but 
these are evidently subordinate and of very doubt- 
ful meaning, the explanation of Langdon ^ being 
by no means certain. Langdon takes another 
word, n^iD in T)')Db,^ as designating a holocaust. 
He considers it the same as the Syriac word for 
holocaust. Haupt* compares with this Syriac 
word the Babylonian sacrificial term shumu, to 

iCIS, I, 165, 1. II. «JBL, XXIII. p. 86. 

» JBL, XXlfi, pp. 81, 89. *JBt, XIX, p. 60. 



no THE OLD TESTAMENT 

which he gives the meaning roasted meat. This 
explanation of n'lD is suggestive, but the inscrip- 
tion in which it is found is so exceedingly frag- 
mentary that no definite conclusion can be reached 
concerning it. The word na? is found in Phoeni- 
cian as a noun as well as a verb, but it has an al- 
together general meaning, being applied even to 
bloodless sacrifices. 

In Babylonian and Assyrian the word zihu, the 
equivalent of Hebrew n??, is found only rarely, 
and with a general meaning, as in Phoenician, in- 
cluding bloodless offerings. The corresponding 
verb has not been found. The word for animal 
sacrifice is niqii. This was the original word for 
libation, and still retains that meaning, but the sig- 
nification has been broadened so that it is the 
common word for animal sacrifice, especially a 
sacrificial lamb. So far as appears there is only 
one kind of animal sacrifice am.ong the Assyrians 
and Babylonians. This resembles the burnt of- 
fering more than the peace offering. The offering 
seems to be entirely given over to the god, al- 
though the disposition of it is quite different from 
the Old Testament regulations. Certain portions, 
as will be seen more fully later, were regularly 
presented to the god; and certain portions regu- 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS III 

larly belonged to the priests. It is not certain that 
any portions were burned, but this seems to be 
clearly presumable. In meaning, also, it is similar 
to the burnt offering, its atoning efficacy is con- 
spicuous, and it is often spoken of as a gift to 
the god. 

Concerning the early idea of Semitic sacrifice, 
the relative age of the two types, and the develop- 
ment of meaning in the case of each, there is much 
difference of opinion. In the discussion of this 
matter, special reference must necessarily be made 
to the view of W. Robertson Smith,^ which is es- 
sentially as follows, according to the understand- 
ing of the present writer. 

The early Semitic idea of sacrifice rested upon 
a primitive conception of the relation of man to 
deity. Sacrifice was a sacrificial meal, a clan 
meal, shared by the god of the clan and the clan 
itself, who were all bound together by physical 
relationship. This was like a common meal 
among men related : it strengthened the ties exist- 
ing between the god and the clan. According to 
the conception at that time, the food was actually 
eaten by the god as well as by the men. The sac- 
rificial animal was kindred to the clan and the god, 

* " Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., passim. 



112 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

i. e.j it was a totem animal. Sacrifice was purely 
a clan matter, not an individual matter. 

The early form of sacrifice was thus a peace 
offering: the other form of sacrifice, the burnt 
offering, was developed from it through the com- 
ing in of the idea that the sacrifice was a gift, and 
through the feeling of the need of propitiating the 
favor of the gods. Originally the sacrifice was a 
joyous occasion, there was very little feeling of 
guilt ; the physical relationship of the god and his 
worshipers made it unnecessary to do much by 
way of propitiating him. The idea of a gift came 
about probably through the growth of individual- 
ism. In the early clan idea there was very little 
individual ownership of property. But in course 
of time. With increasing civilization and wealth, 
individual ownership became common. Gifts to 
the gods, especially of cereals, assumed a promi- 
nent position. This naturally tended to the 
thought that the animal sacrifices were also a gift. 
The old totem idea also became weakened, so that 
the early force of the sacrifice was less strongly 
felt. The increase of civilization, and the disap- 
pearance of the old idea of physical relationship 
to the god, also tended to a cultivation of the 
sense of guilt. From these various tendencies it 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS II3 

came about that sacrifices were presented fre- 
quently as individual gifts for special sins, or in 
seeking special favors. It was still felt that the 
victim was sacred, although the original reason 
was lost or obscured. Then, as an explanation of 
this sacredness, arose the conception that the vic- 
tim was a substitute for a human being. With 
this idea, the flesh was felt to be too sacred to 
be eaten. Burning the sacrifice was then prac- 
tised, simply as a means of disposing of the flesh 
without danger to the worshiper, of which it was 
dangerous to eat. This took place at first prob- 
ably outside of the city rather than on the altar. 
But the significance of the burning was forgotten, 
and another explanation of it arose. The early 
idea that the gods ate flesh like men gave place 
to a somewhat more spiritual conception of them, 
as a result of which it was felt that more ethereal- 
ized food was appropriate to them, i. e., liquids 
and vapor. The blood was at first shared be- 
tween the god and the worshipers, ultimately it 
was all given to the god. Hence arose a libation 
of blood, and later of other liquids. The original 
altar was a stone upon which the blood was 
poured out. The burning came to be considered, 
like the libation, a means of conveying ethereal- 



114 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

ized food to the gods, in this case in the form of 
smoke; and then the burning was transferred to 
the altar where liquids had been offered. 

But the peace offering did not remain entirely 
unchanged. The chief change, however, was in 
reference to the sacred character of the offering. 
At first, as has been stated, this was felt to be 
naturally sacred, because a totem animal. Later, 
in the burnt offering, the sacredness was still felt, 
but was differently explained. With the peace 
offering, however, the emphasis was still laid upon 
the sacrificial meal, and the sense of the sacred- 
ness of the victim was largely lost, so that it could 
still be eaten. Doubtless this diminution in sacred- 
ness arose chiefly from the practical necessity 
of eating the sacred animals for food. The sub- 
stitutionary idea doubtless did not enter here, at 
least not prominently. That is, in the original 
sacrifice two things were prominent — a sacred 
animal and a common meal ; and there was noth- 
ing contradictory in these two factors. But with 
the loss of the original conception, emphasis on 
either one led to the obscuration of the other ele- 
ment. Continued emphasis on the sacredness of 
the animal led, as has been indicated, to burnt 
offering; on the idea of the meal, to the peace 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS II5 

offering, which retains in general the original 
conception, but has lost the idea of the sacredness 
of the victim to such an extent that it is still 
considered safe to eat the flesh. The general 
conception of the peace offering is thus fellow- 
ship; of the burnt offering, a gift, with strong 
and increasing emphasis upon the idea of atone- 
ment for sin. 

Such in brief is the view of W. Robertson 
Smith. How far it can be accepted in all its de- 
tails is a question. But to the present writer the 
general view seems probably correct. It appar- 
ently accounts for the facts better than any other 
view. In particular, the early idea of sacrifice 
and the development of the two types seem quite 
in accordance with the habits of thought of primi- 
tive peoples. 

Two special forms of Old Testament sacrifices 
which have not been mentioned should here be re- 
ferred to: the nxDH, sin offerings and the dk^«, 
guilt offering. These are usually considered to 
be, at least in prominent use, the latest and per- 
haps most characteristic development of the Old 
Testament sacrifices. Both in form and mean- 
ing, however, they are really developments of the 
burnt offering. They are very similar to each 



Il6 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

Other. The chief variation of both of them from 
the ritual of the burnt offering is in the disposi- 
tion of the body of the animal. In the case of 
the sin offering the same portions are burned on 
the altar as in the peace offering, while all the rest 
of the carcass is burned without the city at the 
dumping-place of the ashes. In the guilt offering 
the portions burned on the altar are the same as in 
the sin offering, but the rest all the priests eat 
together in a holy place. In accordance with what 
has been said concerning the development of the 
burnt offering, it seems probable that the disposi- 
tion in the case of the sin offering was the earlier 
custom in the case of the burnt offering. In the 
case of the guilt offering, there appears to be a 
different development of the idea of the sacred- 
ness of the offering : when it came to be regarded 
as too sacred for a common meal, it was eaten 
by the priests solemnly in a holy place, instead of 
being burned. Both treatments, then, it would 
seem, are really early features, although per- 
haps becoming prominent late in Old Testament 
history. Both emphasize the sacred character 
of the offering, and thus make prominent the 
idea of expiation, which they have in common 
with the burnt offering. They are, then, to be 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 17 

regarded as really varieties of the burnt offering. 

A subordinate form of sacrifice is the libation. 
This is regularly an accompaniment of other of- 
ferings. It was probably originally of blood, as 
has already been suggested. There is no signifi- 
cant difference among the various Semitic nations, 
except that among the Arabs it was relatively 
more important than with any other nation, it 
being there, on account of the infrequency of fire 
offerings, ordinarily the essential godward feature 
of animal sacrifice. It was also very common 
among the Assyrians and Babylonians. 

The incense offering is also in general a subor- 
dinate form. This doubtless arose from the same 
general idea as that found in the later explanation 
of the burning of sacrifices, viz., that food was 
conveyed to the gods in an acceptable ethereal- 
ized form in this way. Incense offering is found 
among all the Semitic nations, except the Arabs ; 
it is found among the Southern Arabs. Its ab- 
sence among the Arabs has been considered 
strange. Doubtless, however, in accordance with 
what has just been said, it is to be connected with 
the fact that fire was not ordinarily used in their 
sacrifices. In Babylonia and Assyria, on the 
other hand, this form of offering was very com- 



Il8 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

mon, apparently the most prominent feature of 
the sacrifices. 

The bloodless offerings, or meal offerings, may- 
be briefly treated here. These are found among 
all the Semitic nations. In the Old Testament they 
consist essentially, in the most common form, of 
meal and oil mingled. These elements are found 
in general among the other nations, with some 
additions. It should be noted that these offer- 
ings are not sacrifices in the same sense as the 
animal sacrifices, they are simply, in their essence, 
a form of tribute ; the common Hebrew word for 
them, nn^r?, means a gift. Their treatment is in 
harmony with this idea of tribute. The act of the 
offerer is simply to bring them: they are wholly 
given over to God — a part is burned on the altar, 
the rest belongs to the priests as a whole, not 
to the ministering priest alone. They probably 
came originally from the first-fruits. But they did 
not remain entirely unaffected by the influence of 
the animal sacrifices. To a certain extent they 
might be substituted for animal sacrifices by the 
poor. This was the case with the burnt offering 
and sin offering; it is not mentioned in the case 
of the guilt offering, although that would be ex- 
pected from the analogy of the sin offering. The 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 19 

substitution did not take place in the case of the 
peace offering, evidently because the fundamental 
ideas of the two were entirely at variance. When 
substituted, however, these bloodless offerings 
have no independent significance of their own, but 
take that of the sacrifice for which they are a sub- 
stitute. 

The showbread — twelve loaves placed before 
Yahweh and renewed every week — are a form of 
sacrifice. They have their parallel in the similar 
custom of the Babylonians and Assyrians of pla- 
cing loaves before the gods when sacrificing. 
These loaves were twelve in number or a multiple 
of twelve, often three times twelve.^ These loaves 
in the Old Testament are called d^js d^^, bread of 
face; whether the Babylonian are called by the 
corresponding term akal panu is not entirely cer- 
tain.^ 

Prominent details of the regulations. The Old 
Testament sacrifice of cattle, sheep, or goat is 
usually a male. This is demanded in the case of 
the burnt offering and the guilt offering, and also 
in the case of the sin offering for priest, ruler, or 
the whole people. For the sin offering for an or- 

1 Zimmern, " Beitrage eur Kenntnis der Babylonischen Religion," 
p. 9Sf. 
» See Zimmern, KAT, 3d ed., p. 600. 



I20 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

dinary individual a female is required, while for 
the peace offering it may be male or female. It 
can hardly be doubted that the male is considered 
superior, and so is insisted upon in general when 
the special sanctity of the victim is in mind. This 
accounts for the relaxation of the regulation in the 
case of the peace offering, but the isolated excep- 
tion in the sin offering is anomalous. Among the 
Babylonians, as well, the animal was usually a 
male, although females were also used.^ No 
specific regulation that the sacrifice shall be a male 
is to be found in the other religions, although 
among the sacrificial animals specified on the Mar- 
seilles tablet are «]bK, oXj and by, ram. 

The Old Testament generally provides that the 
animal for sacrifice shall be without blemish, D^pn. 
The same provision is found in the Babylonian 
regulations, the corresponding word being shal- 
mu} This does not seem to be an express regu- 
lation in the material available among the other 
nations. 

The Babylonian, as well as the Old Testament, 
regulations provide that the sacrifice shall be sea- 
soned with salt.^ 

* Jeremias, "Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alien Orients," 
2d ed., p. 429. 

2 Zimmern, KAT. 3d ed., p. 598. 
8 Zimmern KAT. ^d ed.. n. 598. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 121 

In the Old Testament the blood is very promi- 
nent, because it is regarded as the life. This ap- 
pears clearly in such passages as Lev. 17 : 11: 
^' For the life of the flesh is in the blood ; and I 
have given it to you upon the altar to make atone- 
ment for your souls : for it is the blood that ma- 
keth atonement by reason of the life." The blood 
has a conspicuous place in the Old Testament 
ritual of the sacrifices. In the burnt offering, 
peace offering, and guilt offering, it is sprinkled 
round about upon the altar of burnt offering, ex- 
cept that in the case of birds in the burnt offer- 
ing it is drained out upon the side of the altar. 
In the case of the sin offering for a priest or for 
the whole people, the blood is to be sprinkled 
seven times before Yahweh before the veil of the 
sanctuary, then some put upon the horns of the 
altar of incense, and the rest poured out at the 
base of the altar of burnt offering. The blood of 
a sin offering for a ruler or for an ordinary per- 
son is to be treated in the same way, except that 
the first part, the sprinkling, is omitted. In the 
case of a bird as a sin offering for an ordinary 
person, however, it is provided that the priest 
shall sprinkle of the blood upon the side of the 
altar of burnt offering, and drain out the re- 



122 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

mainder at the base of the altar. In Arabia the 
treatment of the blood was the sacrifice, as has al- 
ready been indicated. There it was poured out 
upon the sacred stone which formed the altar. 
There is no express mention of blood in the Car- 
thaginian regulations. In Babylonia the blood 
is evidently of very minor significance: it has 
been found mentioned in only two passages.^ 
Among the Canaanites it is thought that sacrifi- 
cial blood has been found on certain pillars.^ 

In the Old Testament regulations for the burnt 
offering all the animal except the skin is to be 
burned on the altar: the skin goes to the priest. 
In the sacrifice of a bird, however, the crop and 
feathers are thrown aside and not burned. In 
the case of the sin offering, all the intestinal fat 
and the kidneys, and also the fat tail of a lamb, 
are burned on the altar; and all the rest of the 
body is burned outside the city, where the ashes 
are poured out. In the guilt offering, the por- 
tion burned is the same as with the sin offer- 
ing, while the flesh is eaten by all the priests in a 
holy place. In the case of the peace offering, the 
portion burned is the same as with the sin offer- 

1 See KAT, 3d ed., p. 599- 

2Jeremias, "Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alien Orients," 
2d ed., p. 317. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 23 

ing, the breast and the right shoulder are, in P, 
the portion of the priests, while all the rest of the 
flesh is used for a sacrificial meal by the offerer 
and others. 

Among the Arabs, the burnt offering is per- 
haps represented only by the human sacrifices; 
there the victim is burned entire. In their ordi- 
nary sacrifices, corresponding to the peace offer- 
ing, the flesh, without specially excluding the fat, 
is eaten as a sacrificial meal. Among the Car- 
thaginians, in the Marseilles tablet, the priests 
receive a fee of money, varying according to the 
value of the animal — the same for any kind of 
sacrifice. Besides this, in the b^h^, corresponding 
to the burnt offering, the priests receive a certain 
weight of flesh of the larger animals, three hun- 
dred shekels weight for an ox, and one hundred 
and fifty for a calf or deer. The rest was pre- 
sumably burned. In the case of the n;;iy, cor- 
responding to the peace offering, the priests re- 
ceive certain portions called rr^vp and r\h:i\ whose 
meaning is uncertain. The skin, the U2h\ff, mean- 
ing uncertain, the feet, and the rest of the flesh go 
to the offerer. In another inscription,^ the details 
of the regulations vary considerably. 

iCIS, I, 167. 



124 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

In the Babylonian regulations it is frequently 
specified that the following portions of the animal 
are to be given to the god : imittu, right shoulder 
or right thigh; hinsa, loins; shume, probably 
roasted flesh; and silqu, probably boiled flesh. 
The portions that go to the priest are not usu- 
ally mentioned. In the inscription of Nabuapalid- 
din/ however, they are given as follows : sunu, 
loins; mashku, hide; arkatu, rump; bnane, ten- 
dons ; mishit karshi^ half of the abdominal viscera ; 
mishil qirbij half of the thoracic viscera ; two qur- 
sinnu, legs; me seri, a pot of broth.^ 

In the Old Testament regulations it is generally 
specified that the offerer is to lay his hand upon 
the head of the victim, and to slay it. Neither of 
these regulations, however, is given with the guilt 
offering ; while with the sin offering for the whole 
people it is the elders of the congregation who lay 
on their hands, and it is not specified who kills the 
victim. The Babylonian regulations give no di- 
rections concerning the slaying, but in one in- 
scription it is specified that the offerer shall hold 
the sheep that is sacrificed.^ 

The meaning of the sacrifices. The treatment 

iCol. V, 11. 9-i8, KB, III, I, p. i8of. 
a See Haupt, JBL, XIX, p. 60. 

5 Zimmern, " Beitrdge zur Kenntnis der Babylonischen Religion'* 
a, 11., 74, 15s, pp. loi, 107. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I25 

of external features thus far shows that the two 
principal Old Testament sacrifices are found for 
the most part among the other Semitic nations, 
and that there are very many resemblances in de- 
tails. It can hardly be doubted that there is great 
similarity in the meaning as well. The early mean- 
ing as well as form was doubtless the same in all 
Semitic sacrifices, as has been seen. But changes 
from the original form and meaning evidently 
took place previous to the branching off of any of 
the Semitic nations from the common stock. Es- 
pecially the development of the burnt offering 
from the original peace offering, together with 
some changes in the latter, were clearly antece- 
dent to the separation. Hence all this precedes 
the distinctive development of any of these na- 
tions. In the long course of the development of 
individual nations, however, it seems inevitable 
that the meaning as well as form has changed con- 
siderably. These changes largely depended upon 
the extent to which the earlier physical concep- 
tion of the gods had disappeared. It was no doubt 
modified somewhat among all the nations. This is 
seen, e, g., in the general substitution of liquids and 
smoke for flesh as the sacrificial food of the gods. 
Inasmuch as the physical nature of the gods was 



126 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

Still accepted, however, to a certain extent by all 
the Semitic nations, aside from the Hebrews, it 
seems evident that a physical conception of sacri- 
fice must have continued to prevail among all, un- 
less the Hebrews are an exception. That is, the 
sacrifices were still considered to be the food of 
the gods, and their meaning was based upon that 
idea. The general meaning, then, among these 
nations, of the two types of sacrifices would be 
that already indicated — that the peace offering ex- 
presses and promotes fellowship already existing 
with the gods, the burnt offering secures their 
favor which has been more or less interrupted by 
sin. There is really nothing more definite than 
this in the teachings of these nations. The Bab- 
ylonians evidently gave to the sacrifice a certain 
magical efficacy, in accordance with the physical 
conception, as the sacrificial ritual was a part of 
the ritual of incantation.^ 

To determine the Old Testament meaning of 
the sacrifices, it is necessary to keep in mind their 
history and original significance. Perhaps the 
first question is whether the physical conception of 
the effect of sacrifice remains at all in the Old 



1 See especially Zimmcrn, " Beitrage sur Kenntnis der Babyhni- 
schen Religion," passim. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 12/ 

Testament. There is language used which seems 
to have that meaning. Not infrequently the sac- 
rifices are called the " bread of God " (D-'ribx Dirj'?). 
It is often said, as in Gen. 8 : 21 : " And Yahweh 
smelled the sweet savor." In Ps. 50 : I2f Yah- 
weh refers to sacrifices in these words : " If I were 
hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is 
mine and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh 
of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?" verses 
which are couched in physical language, yet which 
repudiate the thought of sacrifices as the food of 
Yahweh. In the general Old Testament repre- 
sentation, however, as has been seen, Yahweh is 
distinctly spiritual; therefore, it is hardly possi- 
ble to understand these phrases as conveying a 
real physical meaning. Hence these expressions 
can naturally be regarded as partly a preserva- 
tion of the phraseology of an earlier time: this 
seems to be especially true of language like the 
" bread of God." Partly also, doubtless, they are 
to be regarded as anthropomorphism which is in- 
separable from any representation of God, and 
which would be suggested by the nature of sacri- 
fice. 

If, however, the physical conception of the 
sacrifices has been lost among the Hebrews, what 



128 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

is the meaning which they retain ? It is probable 
that the general meaning has been retained. That 
is, the peace offering expresses and promotes fel- 
lowship with Yahweh ; the burnt offering is a gift 
by which his favor is obtained, which had been 
lost by sin. The peace offering differs but very 
slightly from the corresponding sacrifices among 
the Arabs and Carthaginians. The burnt offer- 
ing, also, has the same general meaning as the 
corresponding sacrifice among the Arabs, Cartha- 
ginians, and Babylonians. If there is any mate- 
rial difference it is in a greater emphasis in the 
Old Testament upon the expiation of sin. Two 
things are sometimes thought to indicate this. 
One is the existence of the sin offering and guilt 
offering, which are thought to be a late develop- 
ment, carrying the idea of expiation for sin to a 
higher point than the burnt offering. But the 
details of the ritual of these two offerings, as al- 
ready indicated, in their variation from the burnt 
offering, present features that are early rather 
than late. Hence, whatever the time of their his- 
torical appearance, they are not to be regarded as 
developments from the burnt offering, and thus 
a higher form of that; but rather as collateral 
variations in the general development of the burnt- 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 29 

offering type of sacrifice, and hence of no greater 
significance, so far as the expiation of sin is con- 
cerned, than the burnt offering itself. The other 
thing is the relatively great importance of the 
blood in the Old Testament ritual, which has 
already been noted in general. Expiation of sins 
is specifically assigned to the blood, as in Lev. 
17 : 11:" For the life of the flesh is in the blood ; 
and I have given it to you upon the altar to make 
atonement for your souls : for it is the blood that 
maketh atonement by reason of the life." Yet the 
treatment of the blood was the same in the peace 
offering and the burnt offering, while it is only in 
a very general way, in connection with other sac- 
rifices, that atonement is attributed to the peace 
offering, not when it is treated specifically by it- 
self. It seems evident that the blood is not 
thought of as an isolated matter entirely, but 
rather that the type of sacrifice is thought of as a 
whole, although its atoning efBcacy is due to the 
blood. It is doubtful, therefore, if the emphasis 
upon the blood is to be regarded as indicating a 
materially greater emphasis upon the expiation of 
sin than is to be found elsewhere. It seems more 
probable that the expiation, which in the other 
Semitic religions is attributed in general to the 



130 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

life, is here specially connected with the blood, as 
the seat of life. 

The expiation of sin is regularly expressed in 
the Old Testament by the word "133. This word 
is used several times of the burnt offering, al- 
though more frequently of the sin offering and 
guilt offering. This word 133 means in some 
way to make atonement for sin. Besides its 
use in the ritual portions of the Old Testament in 
connection with sacrifice, it is used in the non- 
ritual portions with no relation to them, as will be 
seen. In the ritual use, the priest is usually the 
subject of the verb, and it is followed by a preposi- 
tion governing ordinarily the person affected, 
while the sacrifices are spoken of as the means. 
Thus it is said that the officiating priest makes 
atonement for some one by means of sacrifice. 
The sins for which atonement is made are also 
sometimes mentioned. This word is used, with 
the same general meaning as in Hebrew, in Bab- 
ylonian, Aramaic, and Arabic, all in the intensive 
stem. There are two prevalent views concerning 
the original meaning of the word. One is that 
it was to cover, hide, which is the meaning of the 
Arabic w^ord in the simple stem. The other view 
is that it was to wash away, which is the meaning 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I3I 

of the Syriac word in the simple stem, and is also 
found as a meaning of the Babylonian/ The 
occurrence of the latter meaning in the two lan- 
guages, Babylonian and Syriac, gives a presump- 
tion in favor of that as the original meaning of 
the root. This meaning also makes it easier to 
think of some tangible idea as in mind in the use 
of the word, and to trace the development of 
thought, and is probably to be accepted. Mention 
should also be made, however, of the view^ often 
held that n33 is to be regarded as a denominative 
from '?^3, ransom.^ This does not take into ac- 
count sufficiently the Babylonian usage, and in 
general seems less in accord with primitive ideas 
than the view here presented. The view of 
Schrank ^ that the early meaning of the Babylo- 
nian word was of a medical nature, to besmear 
("bestreichen "), seems based upon no sufficient 
evidence, although there may be a distinct root 
having some such meaning. The origin of the 
usage before us, then, on the view accepted, was in 
the thought of washing away ritual uncleanness, 
which was done at first by water in the purifica- 

1 See KA.T, 3d ed., p. 601; Morgenstern, "The Doctrine of Sin in 
the Babylonian Religion," p. 44. 

2 As, e. g., in Siegfried und Stade, Hehr'disches Worterhuch; H. P. 
Smith, AJTfi, X, p. 412; J. M. P. ^mith, "Biblical World," XXXI, 
p. 26 seq. 

^ " Babyloiiische Siihnriten," p. 81 seq. 



132 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

tion ceremonies; and then the application was 
broadened to include any ceremony for ritual 
purification. This is the meaning which the word 
has regularly in the Babylonian ritual tablets, to 
wash away ceremonial uncleanness. In the Old 
Testament ritual use, also, the meaning is sub- 
stantially the same. In these passages sin is 
thought of as of a ritual nature, and it is the re- 
moval of sin as uncleanness that is in mind. Hence, 
in the use before us, in connection with sacrifices, 
the word has a ritual significance; it denotes the 
removal of ritual sin, regarded as uncleanness. 

It is sometimes thought that the Hebrew i^3, 
at least in its ritual use, has been borrowed from 
the Babylonian kiippuru. Thus Zimmern speaks 
oi" dieses im babylonischen Suhneritual als ter- 
minus technicus verwendte kuppuru/' and says 
" Weiter aber ist sehr wahrscheinlich, das hebr, 
if3, wenigstens als speciHsch kultustechnischer 
Ausdruck in der Bed. ' siihnen/ nicht geniiin he- 
brdisch ist, sondern erst auf Grund des babylon- 
ischen kultustechnischen Gebrauches von kitppuru 
in Aufnahme gekommen istf ^ But this is improb- 
able. There seems no reason to separate materially 
between the ritual and non-ritual meanings of 

1 KAT, 3d ed., p. 6oif. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 33 

133, and there is no question that the word, at 
least in the non-ritual use, was employed before 
the Babylonian exile, at which time the borrow- 
ing could most naturally take place. 

Is it a Semitic teaching that the victim in sac- 
rifice is a substitute for a human being, the guilty 
party? The most definite statement of this idea 
is found among the Babylonians. Thus it is 
said,^ '* The lamb, the object of exchange for a 
man, the lamb he [the priest] gives for his life. 
The head of the lamb he gives for the head of 
the man, the neck of the lamb he gives for the 
neck of the man, the breast of the lamb he gives 
for the breast of the man." Similar statements are 
found elsewhere.^ This, however, is no regular 
part of the sacrificial ritual, and would seem to 
have no prominent place in the Babylonian mean- 
ing of the sacrifice. The detailed identification, 
further, suggests that we have here a development 
along the line of magic, suggested by the common 
ideas of witchcraft, in which actions of the witch 
or the one performing an incantation against a 
witch affected the particular part involved in the 
action. 

1 See KAT, 3d ed., p. 597. 

2 See especially Jeremias, " Das Alte Testament im Lichte des 
Alien Orients," 2d ed., p. 368f. 



134 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

In the Old Testament there is no clear statement 
of substitution. The emphasis upon the blood, 
as atoning by virtue of the life, is sometimes 
thought to suggest it, as indicating that the blood 
represents the life given for the life of the man. 
The force of this argument is weakened, however, 
by the fact that the specific offenses for which 
sacrifices are offered are not those for which 
there is a death penalty, but less serious offenses. 
Another argument is drawn from some state- 
ments about the sin offering. The treatment of 
the sin offering on the day of Atonement seems 
to indicate that it was regarded as very similar 
to the goat " for Azazel," see especially Lev. i6 : 
26 in comparison with ver. 28. The goat " for 
Azazel," however, was regarded as bearing the 
sins of the people (Lev. 16 : 21), which is 
thought to make it probable that the sin offering 
was so regarded, and hence as a substitute for 
man. The argument, however, is indirect and 
uncertain. 

Substitution appears in the case of the ram 
offered in place of Isaac, and also in the redemp- 
tion of firstborn sons, although the latter prac- 
tice is not definitely sacrificial. The former case 
is exceptional, and doubtless to be connected with 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I35 

the prevailing ideas in reference to human sacri- 
fices. The Old Testament, then, has no clear 
teaching that the sacrifice is substitutionary, and 
the meaning of the sacrifices is really opposed to 
that idea. 

Wherever human sacrifices are found, they 
doubtless show that animal sacrifices are regarded 
as substitutes for human beings, human sacrifice 
being offered as the most efiicacious sacrifice. In 
the Semitic world, human sacrifices were espe- 
cially common among the Canaanites/ The sub- 
stitutionary idea, as has already been noted, is a 
late idea in the development of the sacrifices, hav- 
ing nothing to do with their fundamental signifi- 
cance. 

There remains for consideration the meaning 
of the Old Testament sin offering and guilt offer- 
ing. The general meaning of these, as has already 
been indicated, is probably the same as of the 
burnt offering, so that really they are only varie- 
ties of that. In statement they are more directly 
connected with the removal of sin and iniquity than 
is the burnt offering. The details of the ritual, so 
far as they pertain to the disposition of the flesh, 
can hardly be considered to give a fundamentally 

^ Sellin, "Die Ertrag der Aiisgrabnngen im Orient," p. 28 seq. 



136 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

different meaning from that of the burnt offering, 
as has been indicated. The treatment of the blood 
in the guilt offering is the same as in the burnt 
offering. The variation in reference to the blood 
in the sin offering probably has no great signifi- 
cance, except the sprinkling of the blood before 
Yahweh in front of the veil of the sanctuary, 
which evidently is to be thought of as bringing the 
atoning efficacy of the blood more directly before 
Yahweh. This fact, and also the more frequent 
use of i|3 in connection with the sin offering and 
guilt offering than with the burnt offering, may 
indicate variations from the burnt offering in the 
direction of greater intensity in atoning efficacy; 
but that difference in significance, if any, is slight. 
The scope of these two sacrifices is somewhat 
different from that of the burnt offering. Both 
have reference in general to speciHc offenses, 
while apparently the burnt offering is for sins 
which are not known specifically. It is reasonably 
clear that the guilt offering is for sins for which 
reparation can be made to the injured party ; while 
the sin offering is for cases where such reparation 
cannot be made, including some ceremonial of- 
fenses. But this recognition of specific individual 
sins as such does not mark any great advance in 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I37 

the idea of sin beyond the more general acknowl- 
edgment of sinfulness and sinful acts found in 
the burnt offering. 

The relation of sacrifices to the nation and the 
individual should be noted. In its early signifi- 
cance, as we have seen, sacrifice was a clan matter. 
Later the individual idea arose, especially in con- 
nection with the type of sacrifice represented 
by the burnt offering. The peace offering re- 
tained generally its communal character. It was 
not, however, necessarily a clan matter, but in its 
very nature it did imply that the sacrificial meal 
was shared by a group : it did not become fully an 
individual thing, although often brought by an 
individual. The burnt offering and sin offering 
among the Hebrews might be for the nation or 
for individuals; the guilt offering, so far as ap- 
pears, was only individual. Among the other 
Semitic nations, also, it is reasonably clear that 
the burnt offering might be either individual or 
national. The Carthaginian regulations are not 
very explicit ; they imply, however, individual of- 
ferings in speaking of the offerer (n:3T S;?^), in 
relation probably to each class of sacrifices. That 
there were also community sacrifices of some kind 
may be presumed. Among the Babylonians the 



138 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

daily sacrifices, at any rate, were clearly commu- 
nity sacrifices. That there were also individual 
sacrifices is shown by the ritual, which speaks of 
the offerer (bel niqe). In Babylonia, however, 
it seems evident that the sacrificial ritual often had 
in mind the king, as head of the State, for he is 
frequently mentioned in the ritual tablets as the 
object of the rites. 

So far as has yet been stated, then, the rela- 
tion of the sacrifices to individuals or communi- 
ties was similar among all the Semitic nations. 
In another point, however, the Hebrew conception 
differed greatly from the thought elsewhere, al- 
though based upon the common conception. Sac- 
rifice, we have seen, is essentially a clan matter; 
every one partaking of it is of necessity a member 
of the clan in good standing. When the burnt 
offering has been developed, the fundamental po- 
sition is still the same; it is a clan matter in this 
sense, that only a member of the clan has a right 
to offer it. The sins for which the atoning sacri- 
fice is offered are not sufficiently serious to im- 
pair one's relation to the clan and to the god of 
the clan: if they were sufficient for that, sacri- 
fice could not atone for them. In this early con- 
ception, the sins which did thus affect one's stand- 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 39 

ing in the clan were serious offenses directed 
against it, materially injuring the life of the clan. 
One who had committed a sin of this kind had 
forfeited his right as a member of the clan; only 
two courses were then possible, death or banish- 
ment. In harmony with these ideas, we find that 
among the Arabs the killing of a fellow-tribesman 
was the great sin. This, even if unintentional, 
was punished by death or expulsion from the 
tribe. ^ These general ideas have been expanded 
in the Old Testament. The relation of the He- 
brews is not that of natural consanguinity with 
Yahweh, but they are in covenant relation with 
him. The sacrifices presuppose the covenant re- 
lation, and they are only for those in good stand- 
ing in this relation. The sins for which they atone 
are sins that do not seriously affect this covenant 
relation, and their effect is fully to restore one's 
standing in the theocracy. They have to do, then, 
with the individual in his national relation, not 
with the individual purely as such. 

But the early conception of the difference be- 
tween the two classes of sins has been materially 
modified and developed in the Old Testament. 
The serious sins here are not sins against the tribe 

^ W. Robertson Smith, " Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., p. 420. 



140 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

in which a common physical Hfe with the god is 
seen, they are sins against the God of the cove- 
nant, sins which vitally affect one's relation to 
Yahweh. These are sins of deliberate purpose, 
sins which show rebellion against God; for such 
sins the sacrifices make no provision. This dis- 
tinction is most clearly stated in certain passages 
of P, especially in Num. 15 : 27-31. Here the 
sins of deliberate purpose for which the sacrifices 
make no provision are characterized as done 
" with a high hand," hd*! t^. The sins for which 
the sacrifices make provision are sins done " un- 
wittingly," T\iW2. This actually means by mis- 
take, error. Its real significance evidently is, 
sins done through ignorance, inadvertence, or or- 
dinary human frailty, which do not show a de- 
liberate departure from God. The sins for which 
the burnt offering, sin offering, and guilt offer- 
ing are offered are sins described as of the latter 
kind, done unwittingly. Here are included ordi- 
narily all ritual sins, as well as minor ethical sins. 
The sins committed with a high hand leave one 
directly in relation with God, to be dealt with in 
punishment or mercy. For such sins the ordinary 
punishment was death, inflicted by God, which is 
undoubtedly meant by the phrase in Num. 15 : 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I4I 

30, '' that soul shall be cut off from among his 
people." This limitation of the sphere of effi- 
cacy of sacrifices, while in principle recognized 
from early times, yet practically goes far beyond 
any limitations among the other Semitic nations, 
and is a most significant fact in relation to Old 
Testament sacrifice. 



Ill 

SALVATION THROUGH INCANTATION 

THE subject of this chapter is one concerning 
which there is teaching only in the Baby- 
lonian ritual, not in that of the Arabs or Cartha- 
ginians, so far as material is available. In the 
Old Testament there is not merely the absence of 
teaching, but direct prohibition of such things, as 
will be seen. 

In Babylonia incantation is very conspicuous. 
The general conception is that there are many 
subordinate evil spirits, demons, who are to be 
called evil simply in the sense that they are malev- 
olent toward men. These cause sickness, dis- 
aster, and death. They are, of course, less power- 
ful than the gods in the fuller sense, so that in a 
general way they are somewhat under the control 
of the latter. The incantations are addressed, 
therefore, both to the demons themselves and to 
the gods. The incantation to the demon, if done 
in the right way, has a direct magical power to 

deliver the individual from his power. The in- 
142 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I43 

cantation to the god, if correctly performed, neces- 
sarily enlists his aid in overcoming the power of 
the demon. These incantations were doubtless 
an early part of the religious literature at all the 
temples, and hence contained references to vari- 
ous gods in different regions. The incantation 
texts that have been found, however, show to a 
larger extent than the other religious literature 
the result of the combining of material from dif- 
ferent places, since they often enumerate very 
many distinct gods, although some of the gods 
seem to be more prominent than others in this in- 
cantation literature. This literature stands also 
in close connection with the sacrificial ritual, and 
with prayers and hymns. That is, to most, if not 
all, religious acts there was given to some extent 
a magical power; if properly performed, they 
had a necessary value. The prayers, psalms, and 
hymns have ordinarily some words indicating 
their magical use. It seems probable, however, 
that this is often a later addition, adapting to such 
use a composition originally not so intended. It 
cannot be affirmed, therefore, that all approach to 
the gods by the Babylonians was along the lines 
either of sacrifice or incantation; but this, at any 
rate, was usually the case. In general, therefore, 



144 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

it would seem that salvation by incantation was 
the most popular and efficacious method in the 
estimation of the Babylonians. The Babylonian 
conception of sin, already discussed, needs to be 
kept in mind in this connection. Sin was to be 
determined by its results ; it was disaster of some 
kind that indicated that sin had been committed. 
The conception of sin was thus external, and its 
removal could be effected by superficial means as 
well. Sin was known by its effects ; to remove the 
effects was to remove the sin. But this conception 
left the determination of the sin an uncertain 
matter, and also the determination of the god or 
spirit that was directly affected by the sin, and 
hence had caused the misfortune. This made the 
incantations vague and comprehensive. They 
consist largely of enumeration of all conceivable 
sins, and calling upon all possible gods and spirits 
for relief. Jastrow says,^ " The enumeration of 
the causes for the suffering constitutes in fact a 
part of the incantation. The mention of the real 
cause in the long list — and the list aims to be ex- 
haustive, so that the exorciser may strike the real 
cause — ^goes a long way toward ensuring the de- 
parture of the evil spirit. And if, besides stri- 

* " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 292. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 45 

king the real cause, the exerciser is fortunate 
enough in his enumeration of the various gods, 
goddesses, and spirits to call by name upon 
the right god or spirit, the one who has the 
power over the demon in question, his object is 
achieved." 

The attitude of the Old Testament toward all 
this is that none of its teaching suggests any such 
way of salvation, through incantation. It has 
been thought that certain details of the Old Tes- 
tament regulations embody practices which have 
a somewhat magical cast, as, e. g.j the bitter water 
of jealousy, and doubtless this should be granted. 
But these are only minor details, and do not rep- 
resent the fully developed Old Testament teach- 
ing. In general, the Old Testament directly dis- 
approves of everything of the kind. This finds 
emphatic expression in the eighteenth chapter of 
Deuteronomy. There eleven classes of magical 
workers are mentioned and their practices forbid- 
den. It is said (Deut. i8 : 12, 14), "For who- 
soever doeth these things is an abomination unto 
Jehovah." " For these nations, that thou shalt 
dispossess, hearken unto them that practise au- 
gury, and unto diviners ; but as for thee, Jehovah 
thy God hath not suffered thee so to do." 



IV 

SALVATION IN OTHER WAYS 

IN teaching salvation apart from the ways al- 
ready mentioned, the Old Testament stands 
practically alone, here going beyond any teach- 
ings of the other Semitic religions. It is prob- 
able, as has already been mentioned, that some of 
the Babylonian prayers were composed as the ex- 
pression of a direct appeal for divine help and 
favor; but generally such appeals had a magical 
use. And, of course, in all the religions, gifts to 
the gods were a regular feature. But these gifts 
were largely regarded as fulfilling one's obliga- 
tions to deity, and were not directly a means of 
securing favor so much as their absence pro- 
voked divine displeasure. Also, in their efficacy, 
they are to be considered as similar to sacrifices, 
inasmuch as these have come to be considered 
gifts. But, generally, neither direct prayers nor 
gifts can avail in the removal of the barrier be- 
tween gods and men caused by sin. Hence the 

general statement will hold that among the Sem- 
146 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 47 

itic nations, aside from the Hebrews, ordinarily 
salvation came only through sacrifice or magic. 

In order to gain an adequate idea of the Old 
Testament conception of salvation apart from 
sacrifice, it will be necessary to consider the matter 
somewhat fully, and with reference to the de- 
velopment of thought in the Old Testament. This 
Old Testament teaching is closely connected with 
the limitation in the scope of sacrifice already 
mentioned, that sins done by inadvertence, n^j^a, 
could be atoned for by sacrifice, but for other sins 
done with a high hand, nan t3, no provision ex- 
isted in the sacrificial system. This distinction be- 
tween the two classes of sins was true alike of 
national sins and individual sins. But the distinc- 
tion, as has been indicated, is fully formulated 
only in P. In the early chapters of Leviticus, sins 
of inadvertence are several times referred to; 
while both classes of sins are spoken of in their 
relation in Num. 15 : 22-31. Before comparing 
this teaching with that of other portions of the 
Old Testament, it will be well to refer briefly to 
the age of this teaching. It is now frequently 
held that P, not only in time of composition but 
in substance of teaching, is postexilic, belonging 
to the time shortly before Nehemiah. In har- 



148 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

mony with this idea, it is also held that the post- 
exilic period was characterized by a regard for 
sacrificial and ritual observances that went far 
beyond anything in preexilic times. It is no part 
of the purpose of the writer to discuss the time of 
composition of P. It is, however, proper to say 
that in his view a considerable portion, at any rate, 
of the material in P must be preexilic, including 
much of the sacrificial material. The testimony of 
the preexilic prophets indicates a prominence of 
sacrifices in the popular mind certainly not ex- 
ceeded by anything after the exile. xA.nd surely 
a great prominence of ritual ideas in early times 
would be, it seems, inevitable in view of the pre- 
dominance of such ideas in the early Semitic con- 
ceptions. The teaching of P everywhere that the 
sacrifice was efficacious as an opus operatum seems 
far more like an early Old Testament teaching 
than like one of the latest, after prophets and 
psalmists had emphasized the importance of moral 
acts, and even of the inner life. In relation to the 
specific distinction between the two classes of sins 
that is before us, it seems inevitable that in sub- 
stance it must have been held from an early 
period of the distinctive Hebrew development. 
We have already seen that in principle it is in 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 49 

harmony with the early Semitic ideas. And it is 
clear that there was some limitation to the efficacy 
of sacrifice. This is seen nationally, e. g., in the 
incident of the golden calf (Exod. 32), for the 
most part assigned to E. Here, in the case of 
national rebellion against Yahweh, there is no 
thought of sacrifice ; the sin was followed first by 
punishment and then by mercy and forgiveness. 
In an individual application, it is seen in the case 
cited in Exod. 21 : 14, in the Book of the Cove- 
nant, " If a man come presumptuously upon his 
neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take 
him from mine altar, that he may die." Here the 
thought is doubtless chiefly of the altar as a sanc- 
tuary, but that in itself clearly implies that a sac- 
rifice upon the altar would be of no avail to win 
the favor of Yahweh. 

On the various grounds assigned, then, it seems 
reasonably clear to the writer that the distinction 
in the treatment of the two classes of sins, stated 
explicitly in Num. 15, is one which, in substance, 
was known from an early period in the Old Testa- 
ment history, and which was therefore familiar to 
the Old Testament writers generally. This early 
conception, it may be repeated, was that the sacri- 
fices atoned only for sins of ignorance or inad- 



150 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

vertence of nation or individual, but atoned for 
these necessarily. They did not directly regard 
the attitude of mind of the offerer, although 
something was implied concerning this by the 
fact that he was in covenant relation with God. 
For sins done with a high hand, prompted by re- 
bellion against Yahweh, no atonement through 
sacrifice was possible ; these put one outside of the 
covenant, the regular punishment being death: 
" that soul shall be cut off from among his peo- 
ple " (Num. 15 : 30). Death was not inflicted, 
however, by ordinary human instrumentality, but 
by the direction of God or his special visitation, 
as in the incident cited (Exod. 32; see also Num. 
15 • 32-36; and 25).^ But even in these cases 
mercy was often extended, sometimes after pun- 
ishment, and sometimes without it, as many events 
in the national history indicate. The distinction 
between the two classes of sins, while rigid in 
principle, was doubtless somewhat elastic in ap- 
plication ; L e.j no exhaustive classification is any- 
where made of the sins which belong in the two 
categories respectively. 

Let us now examine the attitude of the pro- 



1 See especially the discussion of Davidson, " The Theology of the 
Old Testament," p. 323. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I5I 

phetic writings, the psalms, and the wisdom litera- 
ture toward sacrifice. For the sake of clearness it 
may be summarily stated at this point that, in the 
writer's view, their attitude does not differ greatly 
from that already indicated. The distinction be- 
tween the two classes of sins appears clearly, and 
a recognition of this helps greatly in understand- 
ing the apparently contradictory statements. Be- 
yond this, it is principally to be noted that sacri- 
fices are often spoken of favorably in a general 
way as an established institution, more especially 
with a national reference. There is no thought of 
their abolition ; in fact, the existence and prosperity 
of the nation imply sacrifice, the daily sacrifices 
being prominently in mind. In this generally 
favorable way, as a national institution, sacrifices 
are mentioned in Hosea 3 : 4; 9 : 4; Jer. 33 : 
18; Isa. 43 : 23f ; Mai. i : 7-10; 3 : 3f ; Joel i : 
9, 13; 2 : 14; Dan. 9 : 2J\ Ps. 51 : 19; 66 : 13, 
15; 96 : 8. Individual offerings are spoken of, 
but in the same general way as an established in- 
stitution, in Isa. 19 : 21; Jer. 17 : 26; 33 : 11; 
Prov. 7 : 14; 17 : I. They are spoken of with 
distinct approval in Ezek. 20 : 40; Isa. 56 : 7; 
Ps. 54 : 6; 56 : 12; 107 : 22; 116 : 17; 118 : 
2.y\ in most cases with special reference to the 



152 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

thank offering. In Eccl. 9 : 2, the man " who 
sacrifices " is evidently a description of the relig- 
ious man. In Ps. 20 : 3 ; Job 1:5; and 42 : 8, 
the efficacy of sacrifices is recognized, although 
in the last case only partially, the intercession of 
Job being also needed. Of course, also, in the 
latter part of Ezekiel sacrifices are spoken of with 
approval, and many ritual directions are given. 
Other passages might be added to those thus 
given, chiefly those in which the references are 
less direct. 

In this connection reference should be made to 
a view which finds frequent expression at the 
present time. This is that some of the prophets 
and psalmists in the earlier time entirely rejected 
sacrifices, especially, as usually stated, the pre- 
exilic prophets; while later the prophets as well 
as others recognized the validity of sacrifices. 
The most marked divergence of this view from 
the one above given is in reference to the teaching 
of the preexilic prophets. 

In answer, tw^o things especially may be said. 
One is that the prophetic denunciations of sacri- 
fice do not contemplate the abolition of the system. 
These denunciations are numerous, as will be seen 
later, but they are regularly of sacrifices as of- 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 53 

fered by the wicked. This connection is made 
clear and expHcit, so that it is very evident that 
it is sacrifices as offered in the time of the prophets 
that are in mind. Hence there is no ground for 
saying that any preexiHc prophet entirely rejected 
sacrifices as such. The other thing to be noted 
is that several of the preexilic prophets, including 
those most prominent, expressly speak in favor- 
able terms of sacrifices. Passages showing this 
have already been cited, viz., Hosea 3:459:4; 
Isa. 19 : 21 ; Jer. 17 : 26; 33 : 11, 18. The gen- 
uineness of all these passages in Jeremiah is not 
certain, although they are accepted by most. But 
in any case it will hardly be claimed that not any 
of them are genuine. 

It should be added, however, that a comparison 
between the priestly legislation and the other 
writings shows a frequent difference of emphasis. 
In the non-ritual writings the emphasis is ordi- 
narily not upon the efficacy of sacrifice, but upon 
the limitation in its efficacy. It is this especially 
which gives the impression of a marked variation 
in the teachings. 

We pass to a somewhat more detailed con- 
sideration of certain passages which speak un- 
favorably of sacrifices. In some it is said that in 



154 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

the particular cases in question the sacrifices are 
unacceptable on account of sin, as Amos 4 : 4f ; 
Hosea 4 : i3f, 19; 8 : 13; Jer. 6 : 20; Prov. 
15 : 8; 21 : 27. The precise way in which they 
are affected by sin is not made clear; it might 
seem at first that the teaching is here found that 
a right attitude of mind is essential for the ac- 
ceptance of sacrifice, which has not been directly 
taught in anything yet noted. But there seems 
to be nothing to suggest that idea. Rather, 
when viewed in the light of their times and cir- 
cumstances, these passages indicate that the refer- 
ence is to sacrifices offered in cases that are out- 
side of the sphere of sacrifice, and are thus entirely 
in harmony with the distinction between the two 
classes of sins already noted. The wicked here, 
who offer the unacceptable sacrifices, are those 
who have sinned with a high hand; they have 
committed offenses which cannot be atoned for 
by sacrifice. This is evidently the thought even in 
the strong language of Isa. 66 : 3f, which is ad- 
dressed to sinners, " He that killeth an ox is as he 
that slayeth a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as 
he that breaketh a dog's neck ; he that offereth an 
oblation, as he that offereth swine's blood ; he that 
burneth frankincense, as he that blesseth an idol. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 55 

Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their 
soul dehghteth in their abominations: I also will 
choose their delusions, and will bring their fears 
upon them; because when I called, none did an- 
swer ; when I spake, they did not hear : but they 
did that which was evil in mine eyes, and chose 
that wherein I delighted not." 

In other passages the same thought is expressed, 
with something more. These sinners are not only 
outside of the scope of sacrifices, but, as implied by 
that fact, their proper punishment is death. That 
punishment, however, in the mercy of God, may 
be averted by repentance, of which the best evi- 
dence is a changed life. In these passages, then, 
the thought is not, as it is often considered, that 
the performance of moral acts is to be regarded as 
directly taking the place of sacrifices ; but rather, 
this performance testifies to the sincerity of the 
repentance of those whose only hope is in di- 
rect access to God through repentance, who have 
nothing to hope from sacrifices because of their 
great sins. Thus Amos 5 : 22-24, without dis- 
cussing ver. 25, the meaning of which is much dis- 
puted, evidently means, in the context, especially in 
relation to ver. 16-20, that we have here sacrifices 
unacceptable on account of sin which puts the of- 



156 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

ferers outside of their scope. They also empha- 
size the need of a changed life as an expression of 
repentance in the words (ver. 24), " But let jus- 
tice roll down as waters, and righteousness as a 
mighty stream." This side is more fully stated 
in ver. i^i, preceding, " Seek good, and not evil, 
that ye may live; and so Jehovah, the God of 
hosts, will be with you, as ye say. Hate the evil, 
and love the good, and establish justice in the 
gate: it may be that Jehovah, the God of hosts, 
will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph." 
The same thought is found in Hosea 6 : 6, which 
should be rendered, " For love I delight in, and 
not sacrifice; and knowledge of God, and not 
burnt offerings." Here the relation to the cove- 
nant is emphasized by the next verse, which speaks 
of those concerned as transgressing the covenant. 
Such is also clearly the thought of Isa. i : 11-17. 
The condition of those addressed is evident from 
the preceding part of the chapter, and is also 
shown by the reason given in ver. 15 for the un- 
acceptableness of the worship, " your hands are 
full of blood." Here the way to God's favor is 
clearly shown by ver. i6f, " Wash you, make you 
clean, put away the evil of your doings from be- 
fore mine eyes ; cease to do evil ; learn to do well ; 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 57 

seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fa- 
therless, plead for the widow," as well as by the 
following ver. 18-20. The thought is the same in 
Micah 6 : 6-8. The condition of the people ad- 
dressed is shown by other parts of the prophecy, 
as chap. 3. Here the demand upon the wicked 
nation is " to do justly, and to love kindness, and 
to walk humbly with thy God." This is clearly 
the thought also of Ps. 51 : 16, 17. This is writ- 
ten by one who has committed great transgres- 
sion, therefore sacrifice is of no avail for his sin. 
The only way to approach God is through re- 
pentance (ver. 17), "The sacrifices of God are 
a broken spirit : a broken and a contrite heart, O 
God, thou wilt not despise." 

A few other passages are based upon the same 
general ideas, but go a little farther. Prov. 21:3 
states, " To do righteousness and justice is more 
acceptable to Jehovah than sacrifice." It seems 
probable that this should be rendered, " To do 
righteousness and justice is acceptable to Jehovah 
rather than sacrifice." Here there is no context 
that enables one to say whether it is distinctly 
sacrifice of the wicked that is in mind. Yet the 
passages already cited would make that a natural 
thought, at least for the starting-point. Of course 



158 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

those who do not righteousness and justice are 
sinners from whom sacrifice would not be accept- 
able, but who often had an exaggerated concep- 
tion of the efficacy of sacrifice. This, then, would 
be of the nature of a generalization from the 
teachings already mentioned : sacrifices cannot, as 
it is often thought, take the place of righteousness 
and justice. The same is probably to be re- 
garded as the teaching of Ps. 40 : 6-8. Here the 
thought is that sacrifice cannot take the place of 
obedience. This regards " sin offering " as the 
proper rendering in the last clause of ver. 6. 
With the view of Briggs ^ and a few others, that 
this should be rendered " sin," we should have 
simply the general teaching that sacrifice from a 
great sinner is unacceptable. 

In Ps. 50 : 8-14, a somewhat different thought 
seems to be found. There sacrifices are not en- 
tirely rejected, in fact they are recognized in 
ver. 5, " Gather my saints together unto me, those 
that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice." 
Here, then, it is not the wicked but the righteous 
that are addressed. What is reproved in this 
passage is apparently an excessive valuation of the 
sacrifice as a gift to God. In ver. 16-21, when 

* Commentary in loco. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 59 

the wicked are addressed, who have broken the 
covenant, there is no mention of sacrifice. 

There are many other passages which speak of 
direct approach to God, often with mercy and 
forgiveness, without mention of sacrifice. In 
many of these, at any rate, those are thought of 
who have committed great sin, and who conse- 
quently could obtain nothing from sacrifice. This 
is especially the case in the prophets, where it is 
particularly the national salvation that is in 
mind, based upon God's direct forgiveness, al- 
though individuals are also included. God's di- 
rect forgiveness is thus spoken of, e, g,, in Isa. 
38 : 17; Micah 7 : 19; Isa. 44 : 22. It is clear, 
also, that for the most part in the psalms it is 
those who have committed great sin who are 
thought of when God's forgiveness is mentioned, 
as in 78 : 38; 79 : 9; 85 : 2. This is not 
equally evident in Ps. 65 : 3, but the terms used 
would naturally suggest it. 

There are also a few passages which speak 
of approach to God in the temple, or tabernacle, 
where sacrifice might naturally be mentioned, but 
it is ignored. These are especially Ps. 24 : 3-6, 
and Isa. 33 : 14-16, although in the latter there is 
no direct reference to the temple, but to the pres- 



l6o THE OLD TESTAMENT 

ence of God. Here the qualifications for entrance 
to Yahweh are ethical, not ritual. In these there 
seems to be a disposition to ignore the sacrifices 
in their own sphere, substituting ethical character 
for them. Probably, however, they should be re- 
garded simply as illustrations of the tendency, 
already mentioned, to place the emphasis upon 
character rather than sacrifices. 

Ps. 26 : 6 apparently demands an ethical prepa- 
ration for joining in the worship at the altar; if 
so, it seems to be the only passage directly making 
this demand. Probably a better rendering for the 
verse, however, is, " I have washed my hands 
in innocency; then may I compass thine altar, O 
Jehovah." With this rendering the meaning is, 
as suggested by indications in the psalm, that 
the author was debarred, apparently by danger- 
ous sickness, from the temple. He is praying for 
restoration to health, and at the same time for 
relief from the suspicion that he is a great sinner, 
which might be indicated by his affliction. With 
this interpretation the verse is simply based on 
the fundamental idea of the limitation of the scope 
of sacrifice. . 

The passages quoted, and others, which speak 
of approach to God without sacrifice, often use for 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS l6l 

atonement the word "^ij, the word that is used 
in the ritual literature. In its usual and char- 
acteristic non-ritual use, the word has God for 
the subject and sin as the object. It seems reason- 
ably clear that the ritual use of the word is the 
older, both because it more clearly expresses the 
original force of the root, and also because that 
gives a more natural development of the meaning 
than the reverse process would afford. In har- 
mony with the broadening of the early ritual 
meaning of sin, this ritual term has naturally come 
to be used with a wider application. This word, 
originally signifying to wash away, as a physical, 
ceremonial act, should here probably be under- 
stood to mean, as a spiritual act, the complete re- 
moval of sin, which is suggested also by many 
other Old Testament words and phrases. In this 
removal there is no instrumentality, in general, 
aside from God himself; he removes sin by reason 
of his very nature, his mercy, his forgiving love, 
especially " for his name's sake." Of course a 
repentant spirit on the part of man is a general 
condition for this. Sin in its real force and 
power is thus not atoned for by sacrifice, but is 
forgiven by God himself. This conception marks 
the great difference between the Old Testament 



1 62 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

and the other Semitic religions in reference to 
salvation. The conception of sacrifice within its 
sphere is the same, except in details, as that pre- 
vailing elsewhere. It is the conception of the limi- 
tation of the scope of sacrifice, and of salvation 
apart from it, that is really unique in the Old Tes- 
tament. 



PART IV 
THE FUTURE LIFE 



THE GENERAL CONCEPTION 

THE subject of this part is the future life, 
rather than a more general subject like the 
last things. The reason is that certain things in 
the Old Testament doctrine which would be in- 
cluded under the more general title have practic- 
ally no equivalent elsewhere. This is especially 
true of the Messianic teaching of the Old Testa- 
ment and the related ideas concerning the future 
of the kingdom of God. There is nothing suffi- 
ciently parallel to this among the other nations 
under consideration to need any detailed con- 
sideration. It is true that there are slight re- 
semblances between this Messianic expectation 
and the Egyptian anticipation of a future king 
who should be a deliverer.^ The resemblance to 
the work of Marduk in Babylonia ^ is much 
slighter. But any such parallels yet known do 

* Jeremias, " Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alien Orients" 
2d ed., p. 4o6f. 

2 Jeremias, "Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients" 
26. ed., p. 180, 

165 



1 66 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

not touch the real essence of the Old Testament 
Messianic expectation. 

The only Semitic religion, aside from the Old 
Testament, in which any extended teaching con- 
cerning the future life has been found is the Baby- 
lonian. For purposes of comparison it may be 
desirable to state first the Babylonian conception, 
after which the Egyptian view, as well as other 
fragmentary Semitic teachings, will be briefly 
mentioned. The Babylonian conception of the 
earth is as a mountain. The origin of this concep- 
tion is uncertain, but that does not particularly 
affect the present matter. The abode of the dead 
was conceived of as a cave under a mountain. 
This might seem to point to a time when the 
people lived in a mountainous district and buried 
in caves. ^ But that is by no means certain. 
Doubtless it does indicate that in early times, as 
well as later, the dead were buried in the earth. 
The idea of a cave may have been a natural de- 
velopment of the idea of the grave, as necessary 
in order to any freedom of movement. Many 
features in the conception of the abode of the dead 
come from the grave. The name of the under- 
world in Babylonian is Aralu. Some have thought 

1 Jastrow, " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 557. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 67 

that there is another name occurring a few times, 
Shualu, the Hebrew bi«K^, Sheol, but this is very 
doubtful. This region is represented as a dark 
and gloomy place, surrounded by seven walls. It 
was thus strongly guarded so that none of the 
dead could escape and none of the living could 
enter. It was presided over by the goddess Allatu 
and her consort Nergal, accompanied by asso- 
ciated gods and demons. In the poem called 
" Ishtar's Descent to Hades," containing an ac- 
count of a visit of the goddess Ishtar to the under- 
world, is given a good description of this region. 

Toward the land of No-Return, the region of darkness, 
Ishtar, the daughter of the Moon-god, directed her 

attention. 
The Moon-god's daughter directed her attention 
Toward the house of darkness, Irkalla's dwelling-place, 
Toward the house out of which he who enters never 

comes, 
Toward the road whose way turns not back, 
Toward the house where he who enters is deprived of 

light, 
A place where dust is their sustenance, their food clay. 
Light they see not, they sit in darkness. 
They are clothed, like a bird, with feathered raiment, 
Over door and bolt is spread the dust.^ 

Jastrow describes the condition of the dead, on 
the Babylonian view, as follows :^ " What dis- 

^ ABL, p. 408. 2 « Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. zjSi. 



1 68 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

tinguishes the dead from the Hving is their in- 
activity. They lie in Aralu without doing any- 
thing. Everything there is in a state of neglect 
and decay. The dead can speak, but the Baby- 
lonians probably believed, like the Hebrews, that 
the dead talk in whispers, or chirp like birds. 
The dead are weak, and, therefore, unless others 
attend to their needs, they suffer pangs of hunger, 
or must content themselves with ' dust and clay ' 
as their food. Tender care during the last mo- 
ments of life was essential to comparative well- 
being in Aralu. The person who goes to Aralu 
in sorrow and neglect will continue sorrowful and 
neglected." The condition of the dead was thus 
a shadowy kind of existence. Aralu was under 
the control of the gods and goddesses already 
mentioned ; the other gods had nothing to do with 
it ; it was beyond their province. 

A similar conception at a late date among the 
Phoenicians is indicated by allusions in the in- 
scriptions of Eshmunazar and Tabnith of Sidon, 
about 300 B. C. Each of these pronounces a 
curse on any one who disturbs his grave, wish- 
ing, among other things, that he may have no 
" resting-place among the shades," dns"^ nx mb^d.^ 

iCIS, I, 3; Cooke, "A Text-book of North-Semitic Inscriptions," 
pp. 26f, 3of. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 69 

The Aramaic inscription of Panammu, eighth 
century B. C, impHes a future life in speaking of 
himself after death as eating and drinking with 
the god Hadad.^ 

The Egyptian religion contains many inconsist- 
ent representations concerning the future life, as 
on many other points. The principal teachings 
are those of the cults of Ra and Osiris. In the 
doctrine of Ra, the abode of the dead was under 
the earth, and was a cheerless region, as in the 
Babylonian conception, being ordinarily in dark- 
ness. It was a region in its characteristics much 
like Egypt itself. In the doctrine of Osiris, the 
abode was more cheerful, but the general condi- 
tions of existence are not clearly stated. 

There can hardly be any question that the 
general conception of the Hebrew Sheol has no 
distinctively Egyptian features, and is the same as 
the Babylonian idea of Aralu. This is a concep- 
tion which is assumed as familiar in the Old Tes- 
tament, and more frequently alluded to than di- 
rectly taught. A few passages will show the prin- 
cipal features of the Old Testament view. In Job 
10 : 2 if. Job says, '' Before I go whence I shall 
not return, even to the land of darkness and of 

1 Cooke, "A Text-book of North-Semitic Inscriptions," p. 160 seq. 



170 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

the shadow of death; the land dark as midnight; 
the land of the shadow of death, without any 
order, and where the light is as midnight." In 
Eccl. 9 : 5f, 10, it is said, " For the living know 
that they shall die : but the dead know not any- 
thing, neither have they any more a reward; for 
the memory of them is forgotten. As well their 
love, as their hatred and their envy, is perished 
long ago; neither have they any more a portion 
for ever in anything that is done under the sun. 
. . Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with 
thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor 
knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol, whither thou 
goest." That there is no return is also emphasized 
in Job 7 : 9f; 16 : 22; 2 Sam. 12 : 23. The 
only material modification of the view that ap- 
pears in the Old Testament, aside from the mat- 
ter of the distinction between the righteous and 
wicked, which will be treated later, is concern- 
ing the relation of Yahweh to Sheol. There is 
no express statement in the Old Testament that 
Yahweh has no power over Sheol. There is 
clearly the idea that the dead have nothing to 
do with him, which, however, evidently approaches 
the matter from the other side, from the stand- 
point of the dead, in their loss of the relations 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I7I 

that prevail in this life. Thus it is said (Ps. 
115 : 17), "The dead praise not Jehovah, 
neither any that go down into silence," and Ps. 
6 : 5, '* For in death there is no remembrance 
of thee: in Sheol who shall give thee thanks?" 
The general teaching of the Old Testament, even 
in early times, is that Yahweh, as a god of su- 
preme and universal power, cannot be limited to 
this life, but his control extends even to Sheol. 
Thus in the song of Hannah it is said ( i Sam. 2 : 
6), " Jehovah killeth, and maketh alive : he bring- 
eth down to Sheol, and bringeth up." Ps. 139 : 
8 says, "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art 
there : if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, thou are 
there." 

The spirits of the dead, it was thought by the 
Babylonians, could return to earth and cause 
sickness of men. In this work they were like the 
evil demons, and were called by the same names, 
chiefly ekimmUj sometimes utukku, which were 
two among several names of the demons. Incan- 
tations were directed against them, as against 
the demons. There were also priests who had to 
do especially with the spirits of the dead, these 
were known as sha ekimmu. These could bring 
up the dead (musheht ekimmu). The spirit thus 



172 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

brought up is known as shulu,^ There are cere- 
monies for exorcising these spirits of the dead 
who have taken possession of a man.^ Offerings 
are made to them for their food, called kispu, and 
libations, called naq me, pouring out of water.^ 
They are also given other gifts, such as clothing. 
These offerings, it would seem, are largely to 
pacify the spirits so as to prevent trouble from 
them, or to drive them away from one whom they 
have attacked. Partly also, it would seem, this 
was prompted by real solicitude for the welfare 
of ancestors, who are, of course, the spirits ordi- 
narily in mind.* 

The only Old Testament account of the return 
of a spirit of the dead is in the real or supposed 
bringing up of Samuel (i Sam. 28 : 8-19), 
where the phraseology has resemblances to the 
Babylonian terms, especially in the use of bring 
up (nbj^ri)j corresponding to the Babylonian 
mushelu. But in connection with this passage and 
elsewhere, the Old Testament regularly forbids 
such practices. The other Babylonian features 
mentioned are unknown in the Old Testament, 
or specifically forbidden. 

1 See especially KAT, 3d ed., pp. 460, 640. 

2 See especially Zimmern, " Ritual Tablets," No. 52, pp. 164-167. 

3 Zimmern, " Ritual Tablets," No. 52, pp. 164-167. 
*See KB, II, pp. 262f, igzi. 



II 



REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS IN THE 
FUTURE LIFE 

BEFORE directly considering the subject 
before us, it may be well to state again 
briefly the conception concerning rewards and 
punishments in this life found in the Old Testa- 
ment and among the Babylonians and Assyrians. 
The general teaching in both is substantially the 
same. They teach that righteousness is rewarded 
and sin punished in this life. Of course the mean- 
ing of this depends upon the meaning of the 
terms, which varies somewhat in the two cases, 
as has already been seen. According to the Baby- 
lonian conception, sin is only definitely known 
by its results — in disaster. Hence there is noth- 
ing to interfere with the teaching that sin brings 
punishment, because the sin, of some kind, may 
be definitely concluded from the disaster itself. 
The conception of righteousness as bringing re- 
ward, however, was apparently rather a nega- 
tive one; the reward was, in general, the absence 

173 



174 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

of sickness or disaster. It was a part of the con- 
ception that sin brought death, and hence that 
long life was a reward of righteousness. This 
appears prominently in the formula that is com- 
mon in the letters and elsewhere, wishing for one 
length of days. 

In the Old Testament the conception of sin was 
more clearly defined, as has been seen, and on a 
higher basis. The result was that disaster with- 
out special sin was observed, as well as prosperity 
of the wicked, and such cases proved confusing. 
Hence, while the general conception is like the 
Babylonian, as has been stated, in the later 
Old Testament teaching this was considered to 
have exceptions, although not fully abandoned. 
That long life was the result of righteousness was 
a part of the general Old Testament view. 

Since the general conception in both nations 
thus contemplated rewards and punishments with 
a measure of fulness in this life, it is not surpri- 
sing that we find comparatively little concerning 
them in relation to the future life. In considering 
whether there is any relation of the kind, it will 
be convenient to begin with the Babylonian belief. 
The questions here are two, which will be con- 
sidered somewhat together. First, are there any 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 75 

differences in the condition of separate individ- 
uals in Aralu? Secondly, if there are such dif- 
ferences in condition, are they due to the life in 
the present world, in such a way that they can be 
considered rewards or punishments ? 

The clearest passage for difference in condi- 
tion of souls in the underworld is found in the 
Gilgamesh narrative, tablet XII, col. VI, 11. 1-12. 
The preceding context is broken away, so that 
the reference of the first line is doubtful. The 
translation is as follows :^ 

Rests on a soft couch, and drinks pure water; 

The hero slain in battle — 

Thou and I have often seen such an one — 
His father and mother support his head, 
And his wife [kneels] at his side. 
Yea! the spirit of such a man is at rest. 
But the man whose corpse remains [unburied] upon the 
field— 

Thou and I have often seen such an one — 
His spirit does not find rest in the earth {i e., Hades). 
The man whose spirit has no one who cares for it — 

Thou and I have often seen such an one — 
Consumes the dregs of the bowl, the broken remnants 

of food, 
That are cast into the street. 

In the first line the rendering " soft couch '' 
might convey a wrong impression, the rendering 

lABL, p. :i66. 



176 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

" couch " would probably be better. It is the 
usual word for couch, ma'alu. The word " rests " 
(salil) is the same word as is used below, with a 
negative, in the description of the one whose body 
is unburied. It is not certain that the first line 
refers to the hero slain in battle. But assuming, 
as is usually done, that that is the case, his condi- 
tion is not the result of his being a hero, but of 
the care he receives from relatives. The one who 
has not rest, but must wander about, is the one 
whose body is unburied. The first line, then, in this 
statement probably only means that the one who 
receives proper care, especially burial, has rest in 
the underworld. Such a one, who has proper 
care, also has pure water to drink; while the one 
who has no care has nothing fit to eat or drink. 
This care includes care at the time of death, and 
evidently also after death, as is here seen es- 
pecially from the statement, " The man whose 
spirit has no one who cares for it." This care 
doubtless included the food and drink offered to 
the spirits of the dead, already mentioned. It 
seems evident that the conception is that the 
food and drink offered to the dead form their 
food and drink; if this is not provided, they have 
only fragments to eat and that which is left by 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 77 

Others to drink. The inscription on the conical 
piece of clay placed in coffins invokes this bless- 
ing on any one who leaves it undisturbed, " May 
his name be blessed in the Upperworld, and in the 
Underworld may his departed spirit drink of 
clear water." ^ Here it is evident that there is no 
statement of the definite way to reach this de- 
sirable end. In the light of what has already 
been noted this is only a wish that the one who 
has shown kindness to the dead may receive it 
from others. 

In tablet X, col. VI of the Gilgamesh narra- 
tive, it is said of the Anunnaki, the great gods, 
and the goddess of fate that they determine death 
and life. This is said in connection with the un- 
derworld, but the precise reference is not alto- 
gether clear. It is thought by some that it re- 
fers to the determination of the fate of those 
who arrive there. But it seems much more 
natural to regard it as referring to those on 
this earth, for it is immediately followed by the 
statement, "the day of death is unknown." 
Hence this would have no reference to the ques- 
tion before us. 

The conclusion, then, is that the Babylonians 

iDelitzsch, " Babel and Bible," p. 49; see also KAT, 3d ed., p. 638. 



lyS THE OLD TESTAMENT 

knew nothing of a separation in space between 
different classes in the underworld. In general, 
all shared the same conditions. A spirit whose 
body was unburied, however, was obliged to 
wander without finding rest. The care of rela- 
tives and friends, especially the offerings, pro- 
vided food and drink for the spirits; and those 
who had not such care consequently suffered. 
This difference in condition, however, had no 
reference to moral condition or to the life on 
earth ; it was not, therefore, in any real sense re- 
ward or punishment. 

The Phoenician passages already quoted show a 
belief, similar to the Babylonian, that some of the 
shades had a resting-place in the next world. In 
the Aramaic inscription of Panammu, already re- 
ferred to, a teaching of future blessedness seems 
to be found. But it is doubtful whether this in- 
dicates a general belief of that kind : it may rather 
show a hope of some special treatment, perhaps 
deification, of himself as a king. 

In both phases of the Egyptian doctrine al- 
ready referred to there is some distinction be- 
tween the righteous and the wicked. In the cult 
of Ra, this distinction was made on ritual and 
magical grounds. The abode of the righteous 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 79 

was by a, river, the counterpart of the Nile. This 
was, however, a world of darkness, the region 
of night, lighted each night for a brief space by 
Ra, the sun god, as he passed through it in his 
bark. The ordinary lot of the righteous had 
little that was attractive : it . was vague and 
shadowy. A few of the righteous were received 
into the bark with Ra and made the journey with 
him in perpetual light: they were absorbed into 
him. But this distinction was not the reward of 
a good life, it was the lot of a few of the rich 
and learned who were acquainted with certain 
mystic formulae. The wicked were also located 
on the banks of a river and subjected to tortures 
from horrible monsters, such as strange animals 
and fiery serpents. 

This cult of Ra was particularly the official re- 
ligion. The Osiris cult, however, placed more 
emphasis on the future life. The teaching on this 
point is contained in portions of the Book of the 
Dead. In this, also, the separation between the 
righteous and wicked is largely on magical and 
ritual grounds, although ethical features are also 
included. In the early part of the journey after 
death the spirit must repeat certain prayers and 
incantations in order to escape the enemies lying 



l8o THE OLD TESTAMENT 

in wait — demons in various animal forms — and 
arrive in safety at the judgment hall, where he 
was received by Mat, the goddess of truth and 
law. Here Osiris on the judgment seat waited to 
pronounce sentence on the soul. The soul repeated 
a prescribed confession, containing both ritual 
and ethical elements. Then the heart, or con- 
science, of the man was weighed, to see whether 
his statements were borne out by his life. If so, he 
was admitted to the fields of Alu, the abode of the 
blest. Concerning the condition there the descrip- 
tion is vague. These righteous were obliged to 
do some manual labor, although their places 
might be taken by ushebtis, figures buried with 
the mummies. The ultimate condition seems to 
have been absorption into Osiris. The condi- 
tions of life for the wicked were even more uncer- 
tian; Sayce thinks their ultimate fate was anni- 
hilation.^ The final condition of the righteous 
seems to be the same on both views, a pantheistic 
absorption. 

In this matter of separation between righteous 
and wicked, the Old Testament shows no marked 
resemblance to the Egyptian doctrines. 

The general conception of Sheol, as has been 

1 " The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia," p. 179. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS l8l 

said, is like the Babylonian Aralu, and is found 
throughout the Old Testament. Yet the Old Tes- 
tament does make a distinct advance upon this 
thought. This appears in two ways. So far as 
concerns the actual condition in Sheol, the Old 
Testament does not definitely divide between the 
righteous and the wicked. But in the later time, 
as the conception of retribution in this world 
allows many exceptions, the problem of evil is 
felt to call for a solution, and in the absence of a 
satisfactory solution in this life the thought turns 
to the future life. There are a few passages, 
therefore, in which the expectation is expressed 
that the righteous may not be given over to the 
power of Sheol, and this is based upon their fel- 
lowship with Yahweh. This is seen especially in 
Ps. i6; 49; "j-^-, Job 19 : 25-27. But these pas- 
sages give no definite teaching. Prov. 11:7 ^^^ 
14 : 2i'^ give expression to the same hope. The 
other addition to the idea of Sheol is by the teach- 
ing of a resurrection. This appears in the pro- 
phetic thought at first as a national resurrection, 
the nation which has died in exile shall be raised 
again from the dead, as in Ezek. 37. Then this 
idea of national resurrection is extended to the 
individual, so that the teaching of the resurrec- 



1 82 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

tion of the righteous dead appears in some pas- 
sages; see especially Isa. 26 : 19. This is further 
extended to the wicked as well, with a separation 
between them, in Dan. 12 : 2, "And many of 
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall 
awake, some to everlasting life, and some to 
shame and everlasting contempt." This marked 
contrast appears between the Old Testament 
teaching and that of the other religions, the dis- 
tinction between righteous and wicked is one that 
is based on ethical grounds. 



PART V 
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 



GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 

IT will be necessary to summarize some of the 
results already reached, and then in the light 
of these summaries to discuss certain general 
conclusions. 

The first thing to note is that much has been 
found which is common to the Old Testament 
teaching and to one or more of the other Semitic 
religions. The one prominent feature in which 
the Old Testament teaching is the same as 
the teaching of these other religions generally 
is in reference to sacrifice. The sacrificial sys- 
tem of the Old Testament is substantially 
identical with the common-Semitic sacrificial sys- 
tem. It differs from that in details, as the other 
religions also differ among themselves in a similar 
way. But in reference to the kinds of sacrifice 
and their significance it is in substantial accord 
with common-Semitic ideas, as also in general 
in reference to salvation through sacrifice. The 
great difference, however, is in the limitation of 

185 



1 86 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

the scope of sacrifice. In reference to sin, also, 
a portion of the Old Testament teaching has a 
marked similarity to the common-Semitic ideas. 
But this is not the highest point in the Old Testa- 
ment development of the thought; that point is a 
teaching concerning sin that is radically su- 
perior to the common-Semitic teaching. Again, 
the teaching concerning the future life in the 
most of the Old Testament is in substantial ac- 
cord with the Babylonian views. But the intro- 
duction in the Old Testament of the teaching 
concerning rewards and punishments, together 
with the resurrection, marks a higher stage, al- 
though this appears late in the Old Testament, 
and in only a few passages. These three teach- 
ings, concerning sacrifice, sin, and the future life, 
are those in which the greatest resemblance is 
to be seen between the Old Testament and the 
other religions. There is a close resemblance, to 
be sure, in the views of the personality of the di- 
vine nature, which resemblance is of a different 
kind, however, since that is a feature which al- 
most necessarily results from anthropomorphism, 
and hence has comparatively little significance. 

At the other end of the scale stand those Old 
Testament teachings in which the contrast with 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 87 

the common-Semitic view is especially marked. 
Here is to be noted first the teaching concerning 
divine unity, in which the Old Testament differs 
radically from the common-Semitic view, even 
although tendencies in the direction of monothe- 
ism are to be noted in the other religions. The 
teaching concerning divine spirituality is also 
in marked contrast with the common-Semitic 
view, although traces of spirituality are to be 
noted elsewhere. So also the teaching concern- 
ing the ethical completeness of Yahweh is with- 
out a parallel in the common-Semitic view, the 
latter contemplating the deities for the most part 
as non-moral, and sometimes immoral, with 
traces of ethical elements. The conception of 
salvation apart from sacrifice or incantation, as 
presented in the Old Testament, also, has no real 
parallel to the teaching in the other religions, and 
is in marked contrast with their teachings. The 
Messianic prophecy of the Old Testament, fur- 
ther, which was alluded to, is without any close 
known parallel among the other nations con- 
sidered. 

The other specific points on which comparison 
has been made are intermediate between these 
two extremes. They show resemblances and dif- 



l88 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

ferences; but the differences are greater than 
the resemblances. Here are to be included all 
the divine metaphysical attributes, eternity, om- 
nipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience; and 
also the moral attributes, faithfulness, righteous- 
ness, and love. In all these the Old Testament 
teaching is in marked contrast with the common- 
Semitic view; but there are somewhat stronger 
tendencies elsewhere in the direction of the Old 
Testament teachings than in the case of the group 
previously mentioned. In both groups, the Old 
Testament teaching is not only different from, 
but clearly superior to, that of the other religions. 

The comparison made with the Egyptian re- 
ligion has been slight, but no close resemblances 
to the Old Testament have been observed. 

In passing from the summary to the conclusions, 
the first question to be discussed is concerning the 
origin of this element which is common to the 
Old Testament and one or more of the other 
Semitic religions. Here should be considered 
first the group in which the resemblance is great- 
est. There are three theoretical possibilities to 
account for such similarities: (i) independent 
development, with no connection; (2) borrowing, 
in one direction or another; (3) inheritance from 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 89 

common ancestors. The first is manifestly im- 
probable where the resemblance is marked. In the 
case of the group of marked resemblances, we 
note concerning two points, sin and sacrifice, that 
the common element belongs to the formal, and 
hence to the lower, side of the teaching; and that 
in both the common element was evidently held by 
the Hebrews at a comparatively early stage in 
the national development, as well as later. This 
statement is based directly upon the occurrence 
of these ideas at an early period, and also upon 
the fact that the higher view of both subjects, 
which is manifestly a later development, is itself 
rather early. The teaching on both points, con- 
sequently, is too early to be naturally borrowed 
from the Babylonians, from whom borrowing is 
usually supposed to have taken place, if at all. 
Borrowing from the Babylonians may most 
naturally be supposed to have taken place at the 
time of the Babylonian captivity, less naturally 
at the time of the Assyrian invasions. At any 
other time borrowing from the Babylonians or 
Assyrians would be indirect rather than direct. 
Against any large amount of borrowing is also 
the fact that comparatively few words for similar 
ideas are the same in the Babylonian and Hebrew 



190 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

languages. The teaching concerning the future 
life, further, is closely connected with these other 
teachings, and is clearly found at an early point 
in the Hebrew development. Hence in this group 
where the resemblance is closest the common ele- 
ment, it would seem, must be accounted for as the 
result of inheritance from common ancestors: 
these views are the expression of ideas which, if 
they may not be called primitive Semitic ideas, at 
any rate approach the primitive. It is not meant 
that there may not also be some borrowing, but 
this, if so, must pertain to the details rather than 
to the main substance of the conceptions. 

Here, doubtless, reference should be made to 
the view that the Hebrew sacrificial system was 
largely borrowed from the Canaanites. This is 
a frequent assumption, but positive evidence for 
it seems to be lacking. It is based principally 
upon the idea that the religion of Israel before 
the conquest of Canaan, sometimes called the 
nomad religion, was simple, and sacrifice was an 
unimportant element in it. After the conquest, 
in the so-called peasant religion, it was an elabo- 
rate system, with a fully developed sacrificial sys- 
tem. The Canaanites also, it is said, had a fully 
developed sacrificial and ceremonial system 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS IQI 

Therefore this system, it is thought, must have 
been borrowed from the Canaanites. " There 
can be no doubt about it, the sacrificial cultus is 
in its main features a Canaanite institution ap- 
propriated by Israel after the conquest/' ^ This 
view exaggerates the contrast between the con- 
dition before and after the conquest. There is no 
reason to suppose that there was ever a time in the 
early history of Israel when sacrifice was con- 
sidered unimportant. This view of the religion 
before the conquest is based chiefly upon Amos 
5 : 25 and Jer. 7 : 22, the interpretation of both 
of which is doubtful, and probably does not sup- 
port these contentions. That there was some 
change after the conquest is unquestionably the 
case, but there is no evidence to show that it was 
in essence more than a fuller unfolding and de- 
velopment of the institutions already in existence. 
That there was probably influence by the Canaan- 
ites, and borrowing from them, is not denied; it 
is only maintained that there is no evidence that 
this affected more than the details of the cultus. 
In fact, the recent evidence of excavations in 
Palestine goes to show that the attitude of the 



1 Marti, "The Religion of the Old Testament," p. 88; see also 
p. 66 seq. 



192 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

Hebrews toward the Canaanite religion was 
largely one of opposition, and that not only at a 
later time but soon after the conquest. This is 
indicated especially by the fact that human sacri- 
fice (child sacrifice) is shown by these excavations 
to have been very common among the Canaanites ; 
while among the Hebrews it was very rare. In 
fact, no traces of it during the Hebrew period 
were found at Taanek, while at Gezer those found 
were only in the form of offerings in connection 
with buildings. '' Dagegen ist schon jetzt fast 
mit Bestimmheit zu hehaupten, dass die Spur en 
von Kinder opf em nach 1200 [B. C] ganz selten 
werden, fast nur dock in der Form von Bauopfern 
nachzuweisen sind." ^ 

The larger number of Old Testament Ideas 
come in the group where the resemblance with 
the other Semitic religions is much less than in 
the cases already cited. Here it is not possible 
to speak very definitely; but there is no reason 
to reach a different conclusion from the preced- 
ing. In cases where this resemblance is close, 
the cause is naturally early Semitic inheritance. 
In details, it is quite possible that there has been 
influence or borrowing. It is also possible that 

^ Sellin, "Der Ertrag der Ausgrabungeti im Orient," p. 34. 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 93 

there may have been some independent develop- 
ment: starting with certain ideas common to the 
Semitic mind, the different nations may have 
moved along similar lines independently of each 
other. 

We come to a further consideration of the dis- 
tinctive teachings of the Old Testament, those 
which are peculiar to the Old Testament, with- 
out close parallel among the other Semitic re- 
ligions. Here it will be advisable to consider 
first the group of most strongly marked individ- 
uality, in which are included the teachings which 
are in decided contrast with the other religions. 
At this point it is of course desirable to keep in 
mind the limitations of our knowledge, i. e., of 
the material available for comparison. Yet that 
consideration does not justify such sweeping state- 
ments as those of Winckler, that all doctrines of 
the Hebrews were derived from the Babylonians : 
those not found in their literature will yet be 
found. ^ It is a significant fact that the closest 
resemblances of the Old Testament teachings to 
the Babylonian, and to those of the other Semitic 
religions as well, are in reference to the lower 
parts of the Old Testament, those which deal 

1 " The History of Babylonia and Assyria," especially p. i57f. 
N 



194 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

chiefly with the formal side; while the distinc- 
tive teachings in the Old Testament are those 
which pertain to the highest part of the Old Tes- 
tament, the most spiritual and ethical side. It is 
these highest teachings of the Old Testament 
which are most clearly without parallel in the 
other Semitic religions. This group of specially 
distinctive teachings, it will be remembered, in- 
cluded the unity of God (monotheism), his 
spirituality, his ethical completeness, and the sal- 
vation of man through direct approach to him. 
Here the unity of God is the condition of any 
exalted conception of his character; his spirit- 
uality and ethical completeness pertain to the 
highest features of any possible conception of his 
character; while the salvation of man through 
direct access to him is a salvation in harmony 
with that exalted character, more fully in har- 
mony than any formal way of salvation, not to 
say any magical way, could possibly be. These 
things are not only a part of the highest teach- 
ings of the Old Testament, but they pertain to 
the most fundamental portions of it. 

We have discussed the source of the common 
elements in the Old Testament. What shall be 
said concerning the source of the distinctive ele- 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I95 

ments? These, we have seen, are not only dif- 
ferent from the conceptions of the other Semitic 
rehgions, they are far superior to them. And yet 
the Hebrews were not superior in other ways to 
all the other Semitic nations. The Babylonians, 
at any rate, were undoubtedly their superiors in 
education, in civilization, and in material pros- 
perity. Neither did the Hebrews possess a taste 
for religious thought that was peculiar. There is 
no evidence that they possessed this in general to 
any higher degree than the other Semitic nations ; 
all were religious, in action and in thought. There 
seems, then, to be no human cause for the result 
that is clearly evident. What could be expected 
from human nature at those times and under those 
circumstances is shown by the religions of the 
other Semitic nations. The marked superiority 
of the Old Testament teachings in reference to 
that which is most fundamental indicates clearly, 
then, that here a new cause is in operation. That 
cause, it seems evident, is the unique presence of 
God, the illumination of God giving perception of 
spiritual truth, that which is usually called, and 
fitly, the special revelation of God. 

This conclusion is confirmed, and not at all 
contradicted, by the many teachings in which the 



196 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

Old Testament is much different from the teach- 
ings of the other Semitic rehgions, but in which 
the difference is somewhat less marked than in 
these cases just cited. In all these the difference 
is in favor of the Old Testament; the teachings 
there are superior to the teachings of these other 
religions. 

From what has already been said, however, the 
question naturally arises, Why is there in the 
Old Testament such a combination of the higher 
and the lower, of that which has come directly 
from the revelation of God and that which has 
come, at least directly, through men, through 
inheritance from Semitic ancestors? This ques- 
tion may be considered from various standpoints. 
It is often considered from the standpoint of 
God : in giving his will by revelation, why did he 
mingle the spiritual knowledge of himself with 
that which is lower, the formal ? This is a ques- 
tion, of course, which it is difficult to answer 
fully; no one is able to speak adequately for God 
on such a question as this, and to state all the 
reasons which may have entered in. But a study 
of God's dealings with men elsewhere, as well as 
among the Hebrews, and some knowledge of 
human nature justify the inference that, at any 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 97 

rate, one prominent reason for such a course was 
the educational principle that men must be taught 
gradually, that the new truth must be brought 
into relation with the old belief, that the new must 
have points of contact with the old. If those to 
whom the revelation came were to receive it in- 
telligently, and there is no reason to think other- 
wise, this general principle would apply, as in 
other relations. For the more detailed working 
out of this principle it is better to turn from what 
God must have done, in harmony with his nature 
and the nature of man, and see what he did, to 
observe how in reality this principle works itself 
out in the Old Testament, to see how the new 
truth actually comes into relation with the old 
view in the experience of men. Here we need to 
notice several different things, in their applica- 
tion to the matter before us. 

We observe that the revelation of God's truth 
to an individual writer or speaker of the Old Tes- 
tament was not a full-orbed sphere of truth: a 
single truth or a few great truths constitute the 
individual message. There were manifold limi- 
tations in the knowledge of truth by the individual. 
It was distinctly a revelation of religious truth, 
not historical or scientific. And within the re- 



198 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

ligious realm the content of the individual con- 
tribution was small, comprising at the most in 
each case but a few important conceptions of the 
character of God and man's relation to him. This 
is easily seen in the case of the great prophets, 
whose individual messages were limited in scope. 
This may fairly be considered the universal rule, 
the revelation of God to the individual writer or 
speaker of the Old Testament consisted in a few 
things unfolded to him. Such was the message, 
and the work of putting this in form for popu- 
lar presentation, and of adjusting it in its rela- 
tion to other truth and to views commonly held 
by the people was a task in which the human 
powers came into prominent use; there was co- 
operation of the divine and the human. This 
work of adjustment was not only in relation to 
the views of others, but to his own as well. This 
meant that the consequences of the truth he pro- 
claimed were only partially grasped by the in- 
spired writer or speaker, and that often it re- 
quired a long time to work out the full conse- 
quences of certain truth proclaimed: in some 
cases this was not perfectly done, or even ap- 
proximately so, in Old Testament times. Yet 
continually the progress of revelation in the Old 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 99 

Testament resulted not only in the proclamation 
of new phases of truth, but also in the further 
adjustment of truth already proclaimed to the 
views that had preceded it. 

We have already noted that the distinctive 
teaching of the Old Testament centers about God, 
revealing the truth that he is one, infinite, spirit- 
ual, ethical, and revealing that man's relation to 
God is in harmony with this, that sin is ethical, 
and man's relation to God is on an ethical basis, 
not a ritual. The older, common-Semitic, idea 
was that the gods were physical, that sin was 
ritual, and that forgiveness was through the in- 
strumentality of sacrifice or magic. Some de- 
parture from these ideas had taken place before 
the beginning of the distinctive Hebrew thought, 
but it was not a fundamental departure. The 
Hebrew conception began with a higher view of 
God, that he is one, spiritual, and ethical. This 
displaced entirely, so far as definite statement is 
concerned, the view that there were many gods, 
and that they were physical, material. Some of 
the applications of this truth to the relation of 
man to God were also quickly seen. There was 
speedy condemnation of immoral acts in the serv- 
ice of Yahweh, such as unchastity, and also of 



20O THE OLD TESTAMENT 

everything magical : these things were seen to be 
utterly opposed to the exalted ideas of God which 
had been revealed. So also, in general, everything 
that is clearly of a superstitious nature is forbid- 
den. But the attitude toward that which was 
formal, the ritual, sacrifices, ritual sin, regula- 
tions concerning ceremonial uncleanness, etc., was 
quite different. These were retained through the 
whole Old Testament period. These originally 
were based upon an idea of God as physical, yet in 
their development the original idea had been con- 
siderably modified, so that that idea was less ob- 
viously and necessarily inherent than in the prac- 
tices forbidden. Evidently they were never felt, 
in Old Testament times, to be clearly inconsistent 
with the exalted conception of God that was held. 
At the same time it is obvious that here is a cere- 
monial conception of God which is lower than the 
spiritual and ethical teaching found elsewhere. 
These elements, however, are incorporated with 
the higher idea of God, and never eliminated. 
But practically their scope was greatly limited, so 
that they had to do with the national relations, 
with the religion as a State religion, while in the 
individual life they had less importance. His- 
torically, also, it is obvious that to the thought of 



AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 201 

the mass of the people this formal side of the re- 
ligion was the one for which they had special 
appreciation. And this side had its uses, as well 
as its injurious effects, in giving to the mass of 
the people who had no appreciation for anything 
higher an expression for their religious aspira- 
rations. It could hardly be expected that this side 
could have been done away, in Old Testament 
times, unless there had been a much fuller ap- 
preciation by the people of the spiritual nature 
of religion. Even in the progress of God's reve- 
lation, it is only gradually that the higher view 
triumphs over the lower, that the imperfect gives 
way to the adequate expression of truth. 



A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

RELIGIOUS TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS . 

GENERAL 

Cooke, G. A. A Text-Book of North Semitic Inscrip- 
tions, Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Naba- 
tsean, Palmyrene, Jewish. Oxford, 1903. 

Corpus Inscriptionum semiticarum, ab Academia In- 
scriptionum et Litterarum Humaniorum conditum 
atque digestum. Paris. Pars Prima. Inscriptiones 
Phoenicias Continens. Tomus I (4 parts), 1881, 1883, 
1885, 1887. Tomus II (2 parts), 1890, 1899. Pars 
Secunda, Inscriptiones Aramaicas Continens. Tomus I 
(3 parts), 1889, 1893, 1902. Pars Quarta, Inscriptiones 
Himyariticas et Sabseas Continens. Tomus I (3 parts), 
1889, 1892, 1900. Cited as CIS. 

Lidzbarski, M. Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epi- 
graphik, nebst ausgewahlten Inschriften. I and II. 
Weimar, 1898. 

ASSYRIAN AND BABYLONIAN 

Banks, E. J. Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen der 
von George Reisner herausgegeben Sammlung, um- 
schrieben, iibersetzt und erklart. Breslau, 1897. 

Behrens, E. Assyrisch-Babylonische Briefe kult- 
ischen Inhalts aus der Sargonidenzeit. Leipzig, 1906. 

Craig, Jas. A. Assyrian and Babylonian Religious 
Texts. I and II. Leipzig, 1895-1897. 

Dhorme, Paul. Choix de Textes Religieux Assyro- 
Babyloniens. Paris, 1907. 

203 



204 A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Gray, C. D. The Shamash Religious Texts. Chicago, 
1901. 

Harper, R. F., and others, Assyrian and Babylonian 
Literature. New York, 1901. Cited as ABL. 

Haupt, Paul. Akkadische und Sumerische Keilschrift- 
texte. Leipzig, 1881-1882. 

Hrozny, Fr. Sumerisch-Babylonische Mythen von 
dem Gotte Ninrag (Ninib). Berlin, 1903. 

Hussey, Mary I. Some Sumerian-Babylonian Hymns 
of the Berlin Collection, transcribed and interpreted, 
with collation of the original tablets, from the text 
published by George Reisner, Chicago, 1907. 

Jensen, P. Assyrisch-Babylonische Mythen und 
Epen. Berlin, 1900. (Vol. VI, i, in Keilinschriftliche 
Bibliothek.) Cited as KB. 

King, L. W. Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, being 
" The Prayers of the Lifting of the Hand." London, 
1896. 

Knudtzon, J. A. Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnen- 
gott fiir Staat und konigliches Haus aus der Zeit Asar- 
haddons und Assurbanipals. I and H. Leipzig, 1893. 

Macmillan, K. D. Some Cuneiform Tablets bearing 
on the Religion of Babylonia and Assyria. Leipzig, 
1906. 

Rawlinson, H. C. A Selection from the Miscella- 
neous Inscriptions of Assyria. Second edition. Lon- 
don, 1891. (The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western 
Asia, IV.) 

Reisner, George. Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen 
nach Thontafeln Griechischer Zeit. Berlin, 1896. 

Tallqvist, K. L. Die Assyrische Beschworungsserie 
Maqlu. Leipzig, 1894. 

Zimmern, Heinrich. Babylonische Busspsalmen, um- 
schrieben, iibersetzt und erklart. Leipzig, 1885. 

Zimmern, Heinrich. Babylonische Hymnen und 
Gebete in Auswahl. Leipzig, 1905. 



A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 2O5 

Zimmern, Heinrich. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Bab- 
ylonischen Religion. Leipzig, 1901. 

GENERAL WORKS ON SEMITIC RELIGION 

Barton, G. A. A Sketch of Semitic Origins, social 
and religious. New York, 1902. 

Baudissin, W. W. F. Studien zur Semitischen Relig- 
ionsgeschichte. I and II. Leipzig, 1876-1878. 

Curtiss, S. I. Primitive Semitic Religion To-day. 
Chicago, 1902. 

Lagrange, M. J. fitudes sur les Religions Semitiques. 
Deuxieme edition. Paris, 1905. 

Saussaye, Ch. D. L. Lehrbuch der Religionsge- 
schichte. I. Tubingen, 1905. 

Smith, W. Robertson. The Religion of the Semites. 
Second edition. London, 1894. 

Winckler, Hugo. Religionsgeschichtlicher und ge- 
schichtlicher Orient. Leipzig, 1906. 

WORKS ON INDIVIDUAL RELIGIONS 

ASSYRIAN AND BABYLONIAN 

Fossey, Ch. La Magie Assyrienne. Paris, 1903. 

Jastrow, Morris, Jr. The Religion of Babylonia and 
Assyria. Boston, 1898. 

Jastrow, Morris, Jr. Die Religion Babyloniens und 
Assyriens. Vom Verfasser revidierte und wesentlich 
erweiterte Uebersetzung. I. Giessen, 1905. II is ap- 
pearing in parts. 

Jeremias, A. Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Vorstel- 
lungen vom Leben nach dem Tode. Leipzig, 1897. 

Jeremias, A. Holle und Paradies bei den Babyloniern. 
Leipzig, 1899. 

Jeremias, A. The Babylonian Conception of Heaven 
and Hell. London, 1902. 



206 A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Jeremias, A. Monotheistische Stromungen innerhalb 
der Babylonischen Religion. Leipzig, 1904. 

King, L. W. Babylonian Religion and Mythology. 
London, 1903. 

Morgenstern, J. The Doctrine of Sin in the Baby- 
lonian Religion. Berlin, 1905. 

Sayce, A. H. The Origin and Growth of Religion as 
Illustrated by the Religion of the Ancient Babylonians. 
Third edition. London, 1891. 

Sayce, A. H. The Religions of Ancient Egypt and 
Babylonia. Edinburgh, 1902. 

Schrank, W. Babylonische Siihnriten besonders mit 
Rticksicht auf Priester und Biisser, Leipzig, 1908. 

Thompson, R. C. Semitic Magic. London, 1908. 

Thompson, R. C. The Devils and Evil Spirits of 
Babylonia. I and IL London, 1903-1904. 

Weber, O. Die Literatur der Babylonier und Assyrer. 
Ein Ueberblick. Leipzig, 1907. 

HEBREW 

Bennett, W. H. The Theology of the Old Testa- 
ment. London, 1896. 

Davidson, A. B. The Theology of the Old Testament, 
New York, 1904. 

Dillmann, A. Handbuch der Alttestamentlichen The- 
ologie. Leipzig, 1895. 

DufT, A. The Theology and Ethics of the Hebrews. 
New York, 1902. 

Kayser, A. Theologie des Alten Testaments. Zweite 
Auflage. Strassburg, 1894. 

Marti, Karl. Die Religion des Alten Testament unter 
den Religionen des Vorderen Orients. Tubingen, 1906. 

Marti, Karl. The Religion of the Old Testament. 
London, 1907. 

Oehler, G. F. Theologie des Alten Testaments. 
Dritte Auflage. I and IL Stuttgart, 1891. 



A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 207 

Oehler, G. F. Theology of the Old Testament. Sec- 
ond edition. I and II. Edinburgh, 1884. 

Piepenbring, Ch. Theologie de I'Ancien Testament. 
Paris, 1886. 

Piepenbring, Ch. Theology of the Old Testament. 
New York, 1893. 

Riehm, Ed. Alttestamentliche Theologie. Halle, 
1889. 

Schultz, H. Alttestamentliche Theologie. Die Of- 
fenbarungsreligion auf ihrer vorchristlichen Entwickel- 
ungsstufe. Fiinfte Auflage. Gottingen, 1896. 

Schultz, H. Old Testament Theology. Translated 
from the Fourth German Edition by J. A. Paterson. 
I and II. Edinburgh, 1898. 

Smend, R. Lehrbuch der Alttestamentlichen Re- 
llgionsgeschichte. Freiburg und Leipzig, 1893. 

ARABIC 

Weber, O. Arabien vor dem Islam. Leipzig, 1901. 
Wellhausen, J. Reste Arabischen Heidentums gesam- 
melt und erlautert. Zweite Auflage. Berlin, 1897. 

COMPARATIVE WORKS 

Baethgen, Fr. Beitrage zur Semitischen Religions- 
geschichte. Der Gott Israels und die Gotter der Heiden. 
Berlin, 1888. 

Hommel, Fritz. Der Gestirndienst der alten Araber 
und die altisraelitische Ueberlieferung. Miinchen, 1901. 

Jeremias, A. Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten 
Orients. Zweite Auflage. Leipzig, 1906. 

Nielsen, D. Die altarabische Mondreligion und die 
mosaische Ueberlieferung. Strassburg, 1904. 

Rogers, Robert W. The Religion of Babylonia and 
Assyria, especially in its relations to Israel. New York, 
1908. 



208 A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Schrader, E. Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testa- 
ment. Dritte Auflage, neu bearbeitet von H. Zimmern 
und H. Winckler. Berlin, 1903. Cited as KAT. 

Sellin, E. Der Ertrag der Ausgrabungen im Orient 
fiir die Erkenntnis der Entwicklung der Religion Is- 
raels. Leipzig, 1905. 

Sellin, E. Die alttestamentliche Religion im Rahmen 
der andern altorientalischen. Leipzig, 1908. 

Vigouroux, F. La Bible et les Decouvertes Modernes 
en Palestine, en £gypte, et en Assyrie. Quatrieme edi- 
tion. I-IV. Paris, 1884-1885. 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
AND NAMES 



Abraham, (>t. 

Abyssinia, i8. 

Adad, 44. 

Adadnirari III, 45, 64, 66. 

Adam, 25. 

Adapa, 25. 

Aksum, 18. 

Allah, 94. 

Allatu, 63, 167. 

Altar, 100, 106 seq., iisf, 116, 
118, I2if, 149, 160. 

Alu, 180. 

Amenhotep IV, 46. 

Animism, 3of, 35, 37. 

An-Shar, 59. 

Anthropomorphism, 37 seq., 51, 
127, 186. 

Anu, 42, 59. 

Anunnaki, 177. 

Aralu: the Babylonian under- 
world, 63, 166 seq., 175 seq., 
181 ; food and drink in, 176 
seq. 

Ashipu, 21. 

Ashur, the Assyrian city, 42, 65, 

lOI. 

Ashur, the Assyrian god, 24, 42f, 

55, 64 seq., 87. 
Ashurbanipal, 19, 22 seq., 28. 
Astrology, 23. 
Aten, 46, 
Atonement, 96, 107, iii, 116, 

121, 128 seq., 161. 
Atrahasis, 25. 
Azazel, 134. 
O 



Babbar, 43. 

Babylonian exile, 79, 133, 181, 189. 

Baru, 21. 

Bel, 42 seq., 59. 

Bel-Marduk, 43. 

Blood, of sacrifices, 102, 113, 

117, I2if, 127, 129, 134, 136. 
Bloodless offering, losf, no, 

ii8f. 
Book of the Covenant, 149. 
Borrowing, of religious ideas, 

29 seq., 188 seq. 
Borsippa, 102. 
Burial, 166, i75f, 178. 
Burnt offering, 96, loi, 106 seq., 

130, 135 seq. 

Carthage, 25 f, 104. 

Cassites, 15. 

Cave, as burial-place, 166. 

Centralization, of w-»rship, 52, 
loof. 

Ceremonial cleanness and un- 
cleanness, 71 seq., 92, 95 seq., 
i3if, 200. 

Chaldeans, 15. 

Chronology, 28f. 

City gods, 36, 42, 62. 

City-State, 17. 

Clan god (see tribal gods). 

Clan sacrifice (see tribal sacri- 
fices). 

Common-Semitic ideas: 48, 61, 
75, 89, 95, 98 seq., 185 seq., 
199; origin of, 188 seq. 
209 



210 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES 



Confession, of sin, 21, 88. 

Conquest, of Canaan by He- 
brews, 190 seq. 

Covenant, with Yahweh, i39f, 
156, i58f. 

Cradle, of the Semites, 13. 

Creation: in Babylonian ac- 
counts, 23, 87; in the Old 
Testament, 87. 

Creator: Babylonian gods as, 59, 
87; Yahweh as, 58, 60, 87. 

Cyprus, 25. 

Cyrus, 15. 

Daily sacrifice, 102, 138. 

Damascus, 17. 

Darkness, in underworld, 167, 
i69f, 179. 

Death, 37, 60, 82, 89, 134, i39f, 
142, 155, 174, i76f, 179. 

Deification of king, 178. 

Deluge: in Babylonian account, 
24f; in Old Testament ac- 
count, 25. 

Demons: 20, 91 seq,, 142 seq., 
150, 171, 180; present in sick- 
ness, 92. 

Denunciation, of sacrifice, 152 seq. 

Distinctive Old Testament teach- 
ings: 98, 193 seq., 199; source 
of, 194 seq. 

Dust, in underworld, 167. 

E, Elohistic Code, 149. 

Ea, 42, 44f, 59. 

Education, 104. 

Elamites, 15. 

Enuma elish, 23, 87, 

Epics, of the Babylonians, 20, 24f. 

Eridu, 24, 87. 

Esarhaddon, 22. 

Eshmunazar, 73, 168. 

Esoteric religious doctrine, 47. 

Etana, 25. 

Eternity, divine, 57 seq., Td, 188. 



Ethical: character of religion, 
50, 83f, 89f, 94f, 97f; com- 
pleteness of deity, 49, 70, 74f, 
78, 187, 194; divine character, 
48 seq., 75, 83f, 97f, 187, I99f. 

Ethiopic language, 18. 

Expiation, of sin (see atone- 
ment). 

Expulsion, from tribe, 139. 

Ezekiel, book of, 152. 

Faithfulness, divine, 75 seq., 80, 

188. 
Fall, of man, 88. 
Fee, of priests, 123. 
Firstfruits, 118. 
Forgiveness, divine, 83f, 149, 

159, 199- 
Future life: 82, 99, 165 seq., 186, 

190; rewards and punishments 

in, 175 seq., i86. 

Gift, to deity, 107, iii seq., 118, 

124, 128, 146, 158. 
Gilgamesh, 24, 175, 177. 
Grace, divine, 83f. 
Gradations, divine, 42 seq., 55. 
Grave, 166, 168. 
Guilt offering, iisf, ii8f, I2if, 

124, 130, 135 seq. 

Hadad, 169. 

Hadramaut, 17. 

Hammurabi, 23, 25, 41, 49, 81. 

Haupt, 109. 

Heaven, 52, 56. 

Heretic king, 46. 

High places, loi. 

Holiness, 70 seq., 94. 

Holocaust, 108. 

Home, of the Semites, 13. 

Human sacrifice, 107, 113, 123, 

13s. 192. 
Hymns, of the Babylonians, 2 of, 

143. 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES 



211 



Ideographic writing, 31. 

Idolatry, 106. 

Images, divine, 54, 100. 

Immoral gods, 75, 187, 

Incantation, 64, tj, 82, 103, 126, 
142 seq., 179, 187. 

Incense offering, ii7f. 

Individual: in relation to daily, 
17 i 79f, 91; in relation to sac- 
rifice, loif, 112, i37f, 151. 

Infinitude, divine, 57, 199. 

Ira, 25. 

Irkalla, 167. 

Isaac, 134. 

Ishtar, 75, 100, 167. 

Jastrow, 31, 41, 167. 
Jealousy, divine, ^t. 
Jerusalem, 100. 
Jinns, 41, 84. 
Job, 152. 

Jonah, book of, 83. 
Judgment, after death, 180. 
Justice, divine, 38, 63, 78 seq. 

Kalkhi, 64f. 
Kataban, 1 7. 
Ki-Shar, 59. 
Knowledge, divine, 68f. 
Kutha, 102. 

Labartu, 20. 

Lagash, 100. 

Lagrange, 48. 

Langdon, 109. 

Levitical legislation, 98, 153. 

Leviticus, book of, 147. 

Libation, no, 113, 117, 172. 

Lifting of the hand, prayers of, 
20. 

Limitation, of the eflficacy of sac- 
rifice, 141, 147, 149, 153 seq., 
i85f. 

Liver, in Babylonian divination, 

22. 



Local gods, 36, 42, 48, 62 f, 64, 

67f, 80, 100. 
Love, divine, 48f, 83f, 188. 

Magic, TT, 80, 82, 84, 126, 133, 
I42f, 145 seq., i78f, 194, I99f. 

Majesty, divine, 57. 

Maqlu, 20. 

Marduk: of Babylon, 23f, 42 seq., 
65, 87, 165; of Eridu, 24, 87. 

Marseilles tablet, 25, 123. 

Maspero, 45. 

Mat, 180. 

Mercy, divine, 83f, I49f, 155, 
159. 

Mesha, 26. 

Messianic teaching, i65f, 187. 

Migration: Arabic, 14; Aramaic, 
i4f; Babylonian, i4f; Canaan- 
ite, 14; Southern Arabic, 15. 

Minaeans, i7f, 102. 

Moabite Stone, 26. 

Monarchical tendency, among 
deities, 43, 48, 55. 

Monolatry, 40. 

Monotheism: 40 seq., 75, 194; 
ancient Oriental, 47; approxi- 
mations to, 41 seq., 187. 

Morgenstern, 90. 

Muhammad, 2^, 93f. 

Muhammadanism, 50. 

Myths, of the Babylonians, 20, 

24f, 40, (i2. 

Nabu, 44f, 63 seq. 

Nabuapaliddin, 124. 

Name, of Yahweh, 40. 

Nannar, 43. 

National gods, 48, 55, 62, 68, 

80. 
National sacrifices, loif, 137 seq., 

151, 200. 
Nations, in relation to Yahweh, 

60, 79f, 83. 
Nature gods, 38, 50 seq., 59, 75. 



212 INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES 



Nature of man, Syi. 
Nazirite, Qsf. 
Nehemiah, 147. 
Nergal, 44, 63, 167. 
Nielsen, 48 f, 75. 
Nineveh, 16, 65, 102. 
Ninib, 44. 

Omens, Babylonian, 20 seq., 103. 
Omnipotence, divine, 57, 60 

seq., 188. 
Omnipresence, divine, 57, Syi, 

188. 
Omniscience, divine, 57, 68f, 188. 
Oracles, Babylonian, 22. 
Osiris, 82, 169, i79f. 

P, Priest Code, 123, 140, i47f. 
Panammu, 169, 178. 
Pantheism, 39, 45 seq., 55, 180. 
Peace offering, loi, 106 seq., 

137. 
Personality, divine, 35, 38 seq., 

48, 51. 53, 186. 
Philosophical speculation, 39, 46. 
Power, divine, 53, 55, 60 seq., 

72. 
Prayers: Babylonian, 2of, 84, 88, 

143, 146; Egyptian, 179. 
Priestess, 22. 
Priestly legislation (see Leviti- 

cal legislation). 
Priests, 22, 96, 102 seq., io8f, 

III, 116, 118 seq., 121 seq., 

130, 171. 
Prostitution, 71, 75, 199. 
Psalms: Babylonian, 2of, 143; 

Babylonian penitential, 21, 69, 

88. 
Punishment, divine, 76f, 79f, 89, 

9if, 96, i4of, 144, I49f, i55> 

173 seq. 

Ra, 169, i78f. 

Rebellion, against God, 140. 



Redemption, 99. 

Religious literature: Arabic, 27; 

Aramaic, 26f; Assyrian, i9f; 

Babylonian, 19 seq.; Hebrew, 

26; Moabite, 26; Phoenician, 

25; Southern Arabic, 27; 

Syriac, 27. 
Reparation, with guilt offering, 

136. 
Repentance, 155 seq. 
Resurrection, i8if, 186. 
Revelation: 195 seq.,; progress 

of, i98f, 201. 
Righteousness, divine, 49, 72, 74, 

78, 188. 

Sabseans, i7f. 

Sacrifice: 22, 40, 53, 77, 88f, 93, 

99 seq., 143, 146 seq., 172, 185, 
187, 189 seq., I99f; as opus 
operatum, 148; different kinds 
of, 106 seq.; materials of, 104 
seq.; meaning of, 106, 125 
seq.; place of, loof; time of, 

100 seq. 

Sacrificial meal, 106, iii, 114, 

123, 137. 
Sacrificial regulations, 119 seq. 
Salvation, 99 seq., 185, 187, 

194. 
Samuel, 172. 
Sayce, 3of, 66, 180. 
Schrank, 131. 

Shalmaneser II, 64, 66, 81. 
Shamash, 22, 29, 38, 43f, 63, 66, 

78, 8if. 
Sheol, 67, 169 seq., i8of. 
Showbread, 119. 
Shukamuna, 44. 
Shurpu, 20, 90. 
Sidon, 168. 
Sin, 21, 69, 71, 79, 83, 87 seq., 

99, 107, 113, 128, 130, 132, 

135 seq., 144, 146, IS4 seq., 

173, 186, 189, i99f. 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES 



213 



Sin offering, 96, iisf, 118 seq., 
124, 130, 134 seq., 137, 140, 
158. 

Sin, the Babylonian god, 43 f. 

Sins: done unwittingly, 140, 147 
seq,; of deliberate purpose, 140, 
147 seq. 

Sippar, 102. 

Smith, 93, III, 115. 

Solomon, 52. 

Spheres, of divine activity, 63f. 

Spirituality, divine, 35, 51 seq., 
127, 187, 194, i99f. 

Substitutionary idea, in sacri- 
fice, 114, 133 seq. 

Sukh, 44. 

Sumerians, 15, 3of. 

Sumero- Akkadian literature, 31. 

Superstition, 45. 

Syncretism, religious, 43, 48. 

Tabnith, 168. 

Temple: 21, 100, 143; in Old 

Testament, 52, 100, 159. 
Thank offering, 152. 
Theophanies, of Yahweh, 52. 
Tiamat, 24. 
Tiglathpileser III, 17, 66. 



Totemism, 37, 112, 114. 
Transcendence, divine, 39, ssf. 
Triad, divine, 59. 
Tribal gods, 91, 94, iii, 137, 140. 
Tribal sacrifices, iii seq., 137 
seq. 

Unity, divine, 35, 40 seq., 187, 

194, 199. 
Universality, of sin, 88. 
Ur, 67. 
Ushebtis, 180. 
Utnapishtim, 24f. 
Utukki liranuti, 20. 

Votive inscriptions, 27. 

Wellhausen, 94. 

Winckler, 14, 193. 

Witches, 92f, 133. 

Worship: astral, 36, 48, 50; oi 
ancestors, 37; of natural phe- 
nomena, 36. 

Zamama, 44. 
Zammaru, 21. 
Zenjirli, 26. 
Zu, 25. 



INDEX OF OLD TESTAMENT 
REFERENCES 



PAGE 

Genesis 8 : 20 127 

Genesis 28 : 15 67 

Exodus 15: 18 58 

Exodus 21 : 14 149 

Exodus 32 i49f 

Leviticus 2 : 11 106 

Leviticus 3 : 17 106 

Leviticus 12 : 6, 8 96 

Leviticus 14 : 19 96 

Leviticus 15: 15 96 

Leviticus 16 : 21, 26, 28... 134 

Leviticus 17: 11 121, 129 

Numbers 6; 9-1 1 95 

Numbers 6: 11, 14 96 

Numbers 15 149 

Numbers 15:22-31 147 

Numbers 15: 27-31 140 

Numbers 15: 30 i4of, 150 

Numbers 15: 32-36 150 

Numbers 19: 13, 20 96 

Numbers 25 150 

Deuteronomy 18 145 

Deuteronomy 18: 12, 14... 145 

I Samuel 216 171 

I Samuel 21 : 5 72 

1 Samuel 28: 8-19 172 

2 Samuel 12 : 23 170 

I Kings 8 : 27 52 

Job I : s 152 

Job 7 : pf 170 

Job 10 : 2if 169 

Job 16 : 22 170 

Job 19: 25-27 181 

Job 42 : 8 153 



PAGE 

Psalm 6: 5 171 

Psalm 10: 16 58 

Psalm 16 181 

Psalm 20 : 3 152 

Psalm 24 : 3-6 159 

Psalm 26 : 6 160 

Psalm 40 : 6-8 158 

Psalm 49 181 

Psalm 50 : 5, 8-14, 16-21... 158 

Psalm 50: i2f 127 

Psalm 51 : 16, 17 157 

Psalm 51 : 19 151 

Psalm 54: 6 151 

Psalm 56: 12 151 

Psalm 65 : 3 159 

Psalm 66 : 13, 15 151 

Psalm 73 181 

Psakn 78: 38 159 

Psalra 79:9 159 

Psalm 85:2 159 

Psalm 96: 8 151 

Psalm 103 : 17 58 

Psalm 107 : 22 151 

Psalm 115 : 17 171 

Psalm 116: 17 151 

Psalm 118: 27 151 

Psalm 139: 5-10 67 

Psalm 139 : 8 171 

Proverbs 7 : 14 151 

Proverbs 11 : 7 181 

Proverbs 14: 32 181 

Proverbs 15 : 8 154 

Proverbs 17: i 151 

Proverbs 21 : 3 157 

214 



INDEX OF OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES 215 



PAGE 

Proverbs 21 : 2j 154 

Ecclesiastes 9: 2 152 

Ecclesiastes 9: sf, 10 170 

Isaiah i : ii-i/ 156 

Isaiah i : 16 96 

Isaiah i : 18-20 157 

Isaiah 2 : 19, 21 79 

Isaiah 3: 13 79 

Isaiah 6 : 5 96 

Isaiah 10:23 79 

Isaiah 14:26 79 

Isaiah 19: 21 151, 153 

Isaiah 2^'. 19 182 

Isaiah 28 : 22 79 

Isaiah 33: 14-16 159 

Isaiah 38: 17 159 

Isaiah 40 60 

Isaiah 41 : 4 58 

Isaiah 43 : 2 (f-j 

Isaiah 43: 10 58 

Isaiah 43 : 13 60 

Isaiah 43 : 23! 151 

Isaiah 44:6 58 

Isaiah 44 : 22 159 

Isaiah 45 : 9 60 

Isaiah 48 : 12 58 

Isaiah 51:6 58 

Isaiah 56: 7 151 

Isaiah 66: 3f 154 

Jeremiah 6 : 20 154 

Jeremiah t '. 22 191 

Jeremiah 17 : 26 151, IS3 

Jeremiah 18 61 

Jeremiah 23 : 9 73 



PAGE 

Jeremiah 23 : 23! 67 

Jeremiah 31 : 29, 30 80 

Jeremiah 33:8 96 

Jeremiah 33: 11 151, 153 

Jeremiah 33: 18 151, 153 

Jeremiah 50 72 

Jeremiah 51 72 

Lamentations 4: 14! 96 

Ezekiel 18 80 

Ezekiel 20:40 151 

Ezekiel 37 181 

Daniel 9: 2j 151 

Daniel 12 : 2 182 

Hosea 3 : 4 151, 153 

Hosea 4 : 13!, 19 154 

Hosea 6 : 6 156 

Hosea 8: 13 154 

Hosea 9:4 151. i53 

Joel I : 9, 13 151 

Joel 2 : 14 151 

Amos 3 : 2 79 

Amos 4: 4f 154 

Amos 5 : i4f 1 56 

Amos 5: 16-20 155 

Amos 5:22-24 IS5 

Amos 5 : 24 156 

Amos 5 : 25 155, 191 

Amos 9: 2-4 (i7 

Amos 9: 7 6of 

Micah 3 157 

Micah 6 : 6-8 157 

Micah 7: 19 159 

Malachi 1:7-10 151 

Malachi 3 : 3f 151 



turn 7 1910 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



^i 

//?" 



One copy del. to Cat. Div. 



Bm I U'^v 



